Conquer Club

comic boy wrote:

MOBAJOBG wrote:

comic boy wrote:

MOBAJOBG wrote:Trust me when I say, ...I don't fancy to be on this particular list especially THE lowest.

Easy solution just play against equal ranks - wanna join the games I just set up ?

Yes, please but I've to join laterz as I must travel to my work destination now.

Cool - PM sent

Smooth....

The list is not of paramount importance when taken on its own. However, it has to be said that when reflected upon along with other known facts, it does have credence.

The facts are, it does show who takes on lower ranks more often than others. Simple as that.

Fruitcake wrote:The list is not of paramount importance when taken on its own. However, it has to be said that when reflected upon along with other known facts, it does have credence.

The facts are, it does show who takes on lower ranks more often than others. Simple as that.

Which, according to jpliberty, shows the true skill in a player!

Scott-Land wrote:

comic boy wrote:

MOBAJOBG wrote:

comic boy wrote:

MOBAJOBG wrote:Trust me when I say, ...I don't fancy to be on this particular list especially THE lowest.

Easy solution just play against equal ranks - wanna join the games I just set up ?

Yes, please but I've to join laterz as I must travel to my work destination now.

Cool - PM sent

Smooth....

Nothing like a good forum call out to get people into games I think those games will fill fast!

FabledIntegral wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:The list is not of paramount importance when taken on its own. However, it has to be said that when reflected upon along with other known facts, it does have credence.

The facts are, it does show who takes on lower ranks more often than others. Simple as that.

Which, according to jpliberty, shows the true skill in a player!

Ahh yes, but as my codicillary remark points out. It would be incorrect to assume this was the only gauge. What this does perhaps help show is where certain players actually are in the grand scheme of things. It is no surprise that just about every sport is split into divisions. We do not have this on cc. So this kind of play is allowable. If the scoreboard were to be cut into divisions (that is to say, you can play within your division until accumulating enough points to move up) this would not happen.

let us be absolutely frank. This is but further evidence of what is already common knowledge in many cases.

For the record, I come in at 745...which actually is starting to look pretty average for senior players...so far...I have run a check on few other players I know (and had a sneaky feeling were in fact farmers...and yes, it confirmed to me what they really are).

can someone scan me my map rank doesn't work.

i'm the devil!!!
Point Hoarder (666)

i think thats mostly due to the fact that i dont often join but usually start games, and play whoever joins them. so my rank is not really that much up to me.

Kemmler wrote:can someone scan me my map rank doesn't work.

Here you are.

Kemmler - Point Hoarder (767)

Somebody scan the frog please

joecoolfrog wrote:Somebody scan the frog please

joecoolfrog -> Point Hoarder (898)

Newest version of Map Rank not yet available will put the massive majority of people on a higher score.

For example new score for joecoolfrog is an excellent 948.

Please wait until the guys have finished testing and the latest version is made available. Thanks.

White Moose wrote:

Kemmler wrote:can someone scan me my map rank doesn't work.

Here you are.

Kemmler - Point Hoarder (767)

thanks a lot.

yeah I've farmed noobs at times but most of the time I play anyone in speed games so I agree with Fruitcake, 700-800 is pretty normal score for a decent player

chipv wrote:Newest version of Map Rank not yet available will put the massive majority of people on a higher score.

For example new score for joecoolfrog is an excellent 948.

Please wait until the guys have finished testing and the latest version is made available. Thanks.

Thanks for that , if I am not mistaken then that means that 95% of my opponents are of equal or higher rank which im pretty happy about considering my current points total, in fact I sincerely doubt anybody above me can better that score.

Actually with the new version measuring relative opponent not kill, you get 875 which is very good.

I'm not hearing any problems with it so may make this available later on because all the old figures are redundant.

MOBAJOBG wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:Somebody scan the frog please

joecoolfrog -> Point Hoarder (898)

Hee Hee I dont think you quite understand how it works , 898 ( on 3400 points ) is far from the score of a point hoarder my friend

The "Point Hoarder" description is provided by the Map Rank.

Anyway, MOBAJOBG -> N00b Farmer (402)

@chipv, ...I think the Relative Kill Rank description can be further improved upon.

MOBAJOBG wrote:The "Point Hoarder" description is provided by the Map Rank.

Anyway, MOBAJOBG -> N00b Farmer (402)

@chipv, ...I think the Relative Kill Rank description can be further improved upon.

It's gone. New version available. Relative rank - all opponents played. Everyone's score will be a lot different and more fair.

With the new update, here is my Relative Opponent Rank:

White Moose - Equalitarian (0.877)
Can also be read as: 87.7%

Brawler (1.140) is that pretty good?

Well, sort of. It means you regularly play people of a higher rank...

but really this stat ought to be taken in conjunction with for example kill ratio.

It is very easy to have a high relative rank and a low kill ratio if you routinely get beaten by higher ranked players.

Serial Killer (50%)361 i got that too!

My relative rank is N00b Farmer (0.472).

0.472 * 3220 (which is my current Score) = 1519.84 points.

Does this mean that the average points of all my opponents are 1519.84 points?

MOBAJOBG wrote:My relative rank is N00b Farmer (0.472).

0.472 * 3220 (which is my current Score) = 1519.84 points.

Does this mean that the average points of all my opponents are 1519.84 points?

No. The scores are taken at game time, not current time , otherwise the top players would be screwed by this stat.

So the comparison is at game time which, I think is fair.

btw your score is higher than that. Use new version and do a full rescan.

danodukebb wrote:Brawler (1.140) is that pretty good?

Serial Killer (50%)361

hey chipv is this pretty good together?

MOBAJOBG wrote:My relative rank is N00b Farmer (0.472).

0.472 * 3220 (which is my current Score) = 1519.84 points.

Does this mean that the average points of all my opponents are 1519.84 points?

Nah, it means you bash n00bs up and don't often take anyone on who may well get the better of you....

I am the opposite.

Won 142 from 298(48%)
Serial Killer (50%)315
my relative rank is Brawler (1.196)