Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:59 pm**

gdeangel wrote:I posted in the other thread that an increase in win rate in 1v1 is more difficult to achieve than an increase in win rate in multiplayer. After reading this thread, I thought I should explain in more detail....

No don't, please don't...

Posted: **Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:34 am**

Updated -

Robinette wrote: The Top LOSERS in CC... as of April 27, 2008

Here are the players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...
These players can't even win ONE out of THREE games...
Now THAT is a LOT of LOSING...

There and now 36 --> MORE PAGE 1 LOSERS THAN EVER BEFORE

13 Naato 3357 679 222 (33%)
17 Scott-Land 3277 2518 837 (33%)
24 ZawBanjito 3132 587 179 (30%)
39 skillerman 2964 295 80 (27%)
46 JBoy 2842 572 151 (26%)
60 deguu 2755 1975 609 (31%)
64 Point Guard 2743 284 79 (28%)
70 pzaviski2003 2716 939 253 (27%)
72 steve monkey 2703 1278 365 (29%)
76 KIDPAT 2679 373 107 (29%)
79 Itrade 2671 820 259 (32%)
89 joecoolfrog 2646 249 78 (31%)
91 NUKE 2643 1038 323 (31%)
96 alexad99 2625 251 74 (29%)
99 BeakerWMA 2623 700 216 (31%)
120 Jade Empire 2575 1017 318 (31%)
129 RL_Orange 2548 3076 870 (28%)
134 Robinette 2535 386 122 (32%)
136 Beadle 2532 173 55 (32%)
155 steve066 2492 716 169 (24%)
158 yljester 2482 395 122 (31%)
160 Serpentor 2481 302 87 (29%)
165 DigitalRuin 2472 347 115 (33%)
169 maniacmath17 2460 1082 345 (32%)
172 CubColtPacer 2453 39 13 (33%)
174 Tennisie 2451 181 46 (25%)
180 Hesoos 2444 309 88 (28%)
184 igotaished 2438 1033 343 (33%)
196 austex 2422 622 204 (33%)
201 Blanor 2411 229 64 (28%)
222 6 King Man 2374 321 105 (33%)
228 ballenus 2364 368 104 (28%)
229 dkiller83 2363 322 76 (24%)
231 cyberdaniel 2359 736 200 (27%)
235 nesterdude 2352 2408 712 (30%)
245 fbonsignori 2332 275 65 (24%)

LOSERS... EVERY ONE OF THEM!!!!
and whadda ya know... i just won a game which puts me smack dab in the middle... #18 out of 36

Posted: **Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:53 am**

stop bumping Robinette... you sarcasm has expired!

Posted: **Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:54 am**

Bump!

Posted: **Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:14 am**

Jeeze, those guys really need to start playing stacked triples games.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:02 pm**

Robinette wrote: The Top LOSERS in CC... as of July 6, 2008

We now have 37 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...
These players can't even win ONE out of THREE games...
Now THAT is a LOT of LOSING...

7 skillerman 3990 457 145 (32%) General General 4.5 United States
13 maniacmath17 3517 1334 433 (32%) General General 4.6 United States
14 krull16 3489 983 290 (30%) Brigadier Brigadier 5.0 Portugal Portugal
19 joecoolfrog 3197 395 111 (28%) Brigadier Brigadier 4.9 United Kingdom
28 steve066 3073 931 217 (23%) Brigadier Brigadier 5.0 United States United States
34 waynemgough 3002 1312 374 (29%) Brigadier Brigadier 4.5 United Kingdom
44 ZawBanjito 2940 600 180 (30%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 Japan Japan
57 csh1979 2853 2163 694 (32%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 United States
78 Soldier4Christ 2779 640 175 (27%) Colonel Colonel 4.6 United States
80 RedSoxFan 2774 346 97 (28%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
82 ballenus 2766 519 155 (30%) Colonel Colonel 4.7 Belgium
88 Asclepio 2726 272 85 (31%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 Canada Canada
97 steve monkey 2697 1538 433 (28%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United Kingdom
132 coffees 2597 2086 557 (27%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 United States
136 Choco 2590 956 317 (33%) Colonel Colonel 4.7 Sweden Sweden
142 Beadle 2574 180 57 (32%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 Russian Federation
143 Serpentor 2573 369 103 (28%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 United States United States
147 Hesoos 2567 547 137 (25%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 Spain Spain
149 Blanor 2566 239 67 (28%) Colonel Colonel n/a United States United States
150 Thomas.Paine 2561 1647 458 (28%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 United States
153 Silver- 2556 349 110 (32%) Colonel Colonel 4.7 Canada Canada
158 igotaished 2553 1076 360 (33%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 Israel Israel
162 OOGA BOOGA 2539 2035 576 (28%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
175 the liquidator 2520 142 47 (33%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
176 4red 2512 1368 399 (29%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 Australia Australia
178 JBoy 2511 683 171 (25%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
186 Mc Lor 2499 2812 746 (27%) Major Major 4.8 Belgium Belgium
193 Jade Empire 2487 1106 347 (31%) Major Major 4.7 Canada Canada
200 BeakerWMA 2481 787 239 (30%) Major Major 5.0 Canada Canada
211 austex 2457 655 216 (33%) Major Major 5.0 Japan Japan
214 markhoule 2454 287 79 (28%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
216 Stbtgal 2452 161 52 (32%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
219 Robinette 2450 404 124 (31%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
226 6 King Man 2436 375 115 (31%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
228 Point Guard 2435 349 102 (29%) Major Major n/a United States United States
238 100023690 2418 1357 338 (25%) Major Major 4.9 Spain Spain
246 Battle On 2413 220 60 (27%) Major Major 5.0 United States United

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:04 pm**

Personally, I feel teh lower the win% you have typically shows the better player you are, when compared to people of similar rank. I feel if you take a General with a 80% win vs a General with a 30% win, the General with 30% will have a better idea in general on what to do given a random scenario.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:59 pm**

FabledIntegral wrote:Personally, I feel teh lower the win% you have typically shows the better player you are, when compared to people of similar rank. I feel if you take a General with a 80% win vs a General with a 30% win, the General with 30% will have a better idea in general on what to do given a random scenario.

I'm not sure if I totally agree here. You can only deduct that the 80% win rate General plays mostly team games whereas the 30% is most likely a singles player (will be isolated scenarios where this doesn't apply). I don't see how you could generalize their particular skill level is higher or lower than the other. What about win percentages are you basing your opinion on ? Team players are not as good as singles players ?

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:05 pm**

lower win rate and same points => more opponents per game + higher ranked opponents per game

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:08 pm**

I play a lot of Term games and I don't think this means much....

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:26 pm**

I play almost all public Term 6-8 player and have a 39 percent. Was forty till this month. I am getting killed all the more nowadays. And alot of the guys listed are much better than me in other game types also.
Percent in 8 player is way different that percent in 2 player or doubles.
I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:22 pm**

herndawg wrote:I play almost all public Term 6-8 player and have a 39 percent. Was forty till this month. I am getting killed all the more nowadays. And alot of the guys listed are much better than me in other game types also.
Percent in 8 player is way different that percent in 2 player or doubles.
I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

Winston Churchill had a great saying for statistics but i forgot it now

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:23 pm**

herndawg wrote:I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

You could find that out using the map rank plugin.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:25 pm**

FabledIntegral wrote:Personally, I feel teh lower the win% you have typically shows the better player you are, when compared to people of similar rank. I feel if you take a General with a 80% win vs a General with a 30% win, the General with 30% will have a better idea in general on what to do given a random scenario.

whew... thanks for the great laugh!!!-0

p.s.-and yet another bump of a thread... this one over 2 months old and dead... wow... robinette is making this a habit... no comment.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:33 pm**

Timminz wrote:
herndawg wrote:I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

You could find that out using the map rank plugin.

I will have to check that out. cool
thanks

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:49 pm**

Scott-Land wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:Personally, I feel teh lower the win% you have typically shows the better player you are, when compared to people of similar rank. I feel if you take a General with a 80% win vs a General with a 30% win, the General with 30% will have a better idea in general on what to do given a random scenario.

I'm not sure if I totally agree here. You can only deduct that the 80% win rate General plays mostly team games whereas the 30% is most likely a singles player (will be isolated scenarios where this doesn't apply). I don't see how you could generalize their particular skill level is higher or lower than the other. What about win percentages are you basing your opinion on ? Team players are not as good as singles players ?

I'm basing it off something different. From what I'm aware a majority of the players with 80% win rate don't have it because they are doing some triples thing (or whatever you're referring to). I was under the impression most 80% win rate players have the General status (and 80% win) because they play only new recruits, etc. Less skilled opposition overall. While the 30% win are able to hold their ground vs multiple opponents and don't rely on winning 1v1's vs shitty people.

It was meant to be a generalization though simply because not everyone falls into that category. Many exceptions, but that's what I concluded myself at least.

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:56 pm**

ohh you mean with the map ranks and such ? -- yeah I agree

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:43 pm**

owenshooter wrote:p.s.-and yet another bump of a thread... this one over 2 months old and dead... wow... robinette is making this a habit... no comment.

silly boy... it's not a

it's an

Posted: **Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:50 pm**

I am in this list and I always play "six-player singles" or "eight-player singles" games.

Half of my game are private games played played with 2000+ players.
The other half is public games open to any players.

I am happy with my stat:
- 153 Silver- 2556 349 110 (32%) Colonel Colonel 4.7 Canada Canada

This is really close to 33% and I made it to the top player list (first page) in CC.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:22 am**

hulmey wrote:
herndawg wrote:I play almost all public Term 6-8 player and have a 39 percent. Was forty till this month. I am getting killed all the more nowadays. And alot of the guys listed are much better than me in other game types also.
Percent in 8 player is way different that percent in 2 player or doubles.
I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

Winston Churchill had a great saying for statistics but i forgot it now

Just to point out - that was Benjamin Disraeli.

C.

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:03 pm**

gdeangel wrote:I posted in the other thread that an increase in win rate in 1v1 is more difficult to achieve than an increase in win rate in multiplayer. After reading this thread, I thought I should explain in more detail....

....

Makes perfect sense, right?

gdeangel- do you work at NASA or something?

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:23 pm**

yeti_c wrote:
hulmey wrote:
herndawg wrote:I play almost all public Term 6-8 player and have a 39 percent. Was forty till this month. I am getting killed all the more nowadays. And alot of the guys listed are much better than me in other game types also.
Percent in 8 player is way different that percent in 2 player or doubles.
I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

Winston Churchill had a great saying for statistics but i forgot it now

Just to point out - that was Benjamin Disraeli.

C.

Im sure me old mate Winston made it famous though

Ps.Fabled you are so misguided and quite biased in your statement. Your saying whoever has a high win percentage ration is a bad player or cheating lol. i would say the opposite. I know a few single player's who amaze it and how they manage to win time and time again on sequential settings. Please view [player]clive[/player] for more info......

Futhermore, what about team games?!?!

Posted: **Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:37 pm**

hulmey wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
hulmey wrote:
herndawg wrote:I play almost all public Term 6-8 player and have a 39 percent. Was forty till this month. I am getting killed all the more nowadays. And alot of the guys listed are much better than me in other game types also.
Percent in 8 player is way different that percent in 2 player or doubles.
I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

Winston Churchill had a great saying for statistics but i forgot it now

Just to point out - that was Benjamin Disraeli.

C.

Im sure me old mate Winston made it famous though

Ps.Fabled you are so misguided and quite biased in your statement. Your saying whoever has a high win percentage ration is a bad player or cheating lol. i would say the opposite. I know a few single player's who amaze it and how they manage to win time and time again on sequential settings. Please view [player]clive[/player] for more info......

Futhermore, what about team games?!?!

1. Hardly misguided - I said it was a generalization. And I can show you numerous results of high rankers where it's accurate.
2. I looked at Clive's games and about 50% of them are 1v1's vs Cooks or new recruits. You simply proved my point. Even if it's only 40%, the point still remains. They are all cooks/new recruits/low ranks.

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:14 am**

dam,

if you extended that to the first 2 pages I'd make the list.
A week ago I was heading towards the first page, I even got my winning % to 34.

But then I lost 6 games in a row.

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:11 am**

FabledIntegral wrote:1. Hardly misguided - I said it was a generalization. And I can show you numerous results of high rankers where it's accurate.
2. I looked at Clive's games and about 50% of them are 1v1's vs Cooks or new recruits. You simply proved my point. Even if it's only 40%, the point still remains. They are all cooks/new recruits/low ranks.

Generalisations are dangerous and annoy me immensely, as everyone gets tarnished with the same brush.

I guess I am well known for being fairly good at sequential Waterloo foggy 1v1s, but it is assumed that I am beating up new recruits most of the time to get my 87% win rate.

I have always know this to be unfair, so I thought I'd actually count them up... (the following assumes that since the games have finished as many players have gone up as have gone down - not sure how good that assumption is but I have to go with it)

I have finished 446 sequential foggy 1v1 Waterloo games; only 66 (15%) have been against players with scores of below 1100 (and with a single exception, all have joined public games second, so I haven't targeted them specifically); on the other hand 116 (26%) have been against players who currently have a score of 2000 or more (a fair few of these are tournament games or ones where I've joined second - I hunt the high ranks not the low ones - I want a challenge not just free points!), the remaining 264 games are against players who currently have scores between 1100 and 2000, many of whom have 70%+ win rates on Waterloo themselves.

Because I don't want to hide it, and someone will find them anyway, I do have a "darker" side too (although I've grown out of it now): I tried my hand at freestyle 1v1 joining second al la MOBA, JR, torcav... and my results show how hard it is to gain points from these games - I won 189 from 207(91%) and yet only have a net score of +88 from those games, one extra loss to a cook and it would be zero.

So I have got my rank from the Waterloo games mainly... and not from new recruits per se.

Rereading your points above, I've just realised that they are very ambiguous and I may just be agreeing with you... whatever...

Conquer Club

The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC

Re: The Top LOSERS in CC