Conquer Club

lol, howcome we are on top?

I'd vote if only Slotvia had been listed.

Allerian wrote:I'd vote if only Slotvia had been listed.

Is that a brand new nation?

Took about 20 minutes of copy/paste and Excel work. I went with % wins because game score is tainted by number of games played. Population was the top 1,000 ranked players on CC as of October 2, 2007 (afternoon):

Country /Average Win %/ Player Count
Colombia/ 76.9% /1
Ecuador /69.4% /3
Jordan /63.8% /1
Bulgaria /58.8% /1
Poland /58.7% /2
Russian /57.8% /4
Bahrain /54.5% /2
Lithuania /53.5% /2
Norway /52.5% /8
Hong Kong /52.3% /4
Sweden /51.6% /21
Europe /51.5% /1
Thailand /51.3% /7
Iran, /51.2% /1
Egypt /50.8% /1
Belgium /50.0% /9
Malaysia /49.7% /4
Israel /49.3% /10
Malta /49.1% /2
Croatia /49.0% /10
Netherlands/ 48.2% / 47
US /47.7% /499
Finland /46.9% /6
Brazil /46.3% /3
Singapore /46.3% /14
Germany /46.3% /17
New Zealand/ 46.0%/ 2
Canada /45.7% /106
Australia /44.9% /24
Denmark /44.1% /9
Switzerland/ 43.8% /8
South Korea/ 43.7% /2
France /43.7% /16
Greece /43.4% /4
UK /43.0% /95
Morocco /42.9% /1
UAE /42.3% /1
Romania /41.8% /4
Mexico /41.7% /2
Lebanon /40.7% /2
Turkey /40.6% /7
Japan /40.6% /7
Portugal /40.5% /6
Ireland /38.1% /7
Spain /38.1% /5
Serbia /37.7% /5
Italy /37.6% /2
South Africa/ 37.6% / 1
China /37.1% / 2
Bosnia /36.4% /1
Nigeria /35.7% / 1
Average of Win % 47.3%

The one player from columbia takes the cake (Grats Torcav2) Sweden and Norway are the best well-represented countries. Western European countries appear to be behind the curve. As you would expect, the US falls right smack in the middle due to the large US representation (499 of the top 1,000 players are from the US)

I could also do a weighting by score, that would at least show where the US really stands.

Harijan wrote:I could also do a weighting by score, that would at least show where the US really stands.

Wins mean nothing - a six player victory is the equal of 5 1 v1.
Score is more relevant but divided by games would be misleading as those with a higher number of matches would be seriously disadvantaged.

ie 3000 points / 750 games would average 4
2000 points/ 200 games would average 10

This would indicate the second player was more than twice as good whereas in reality the majority of players reach a block around 2100 points and might not ever go much higher. Perhaps the best method would be to add the total points for each country (qualifying with min 3/5 players) represented in the top 1000 and just dividing to get the average figure ie USA 500 players in top 1000 total points 100,000 Average 2000

The Netherlands!!!!

mushin wrote:

Keltik wrote:Kinda a stupid poll, in my opinion. Everyone knows that Texans are the best risk players

But in all seriousness, a poll like this will only lead to flames and trolls. While I enjoying playing against or with people from all over the world, I have as of yet to look at the flag in their profile and think that I will win or lose a game based on where they are from.

Don't you mean Mexico Jr.?

Texan: "Remember the Alamo!!!'
Yankee: "Dude, didn't you get your asses kicked there?"
Texan: "Shutup!"
Mexican: "No, no...I think you did get your ass kicked there. By Mexicans."
Texan: "How bout them Cowboys!!"

There is a difference between the alamo and getting your but kicked. The amount of men and resourses it to to do this paticular feat by the people of hispanic descent was staggering. Them texans knew they were gonna lose and still made the loss a major achievement in the history books.

Just did a quick exercise covering the 4 most represented countries in the top 100:

Country / Number players / Total Score / Average

UK . 13 . 35,656 . 2,742
USA . 36 . 94,782 . 2,630
Netherlands . 11 . 28,380 . 2,580
Canada . 11 . 27,463 . 2.487

So at the elite level it would appear that the Brits are currently the best,be interesting how it works out over a much wider sample.
Sidenote ; Although the USA have 50% of the top 1000 players when it comes to the top 100 that has slumped to 36% which is certainly below par I would have thought.

Doing a weighted average by country would make the most sense. So the formula would be
player score * (individual games played/total country games played)

This would give us a country to country comparison. Weighted by number of games played.

I can do that tomorrow when I get back to work.

Harijan wrote:Doing a weighted average by country would make the most sense. So the formula would be
player score * (individual games played/total country games played)

This would give us a country to country comparison. Weighted by number of games played.

I can do that tomorrow when I get back to work.

It may well be distorted by the point I made earlier, if a particular country has a large pool of players that have played relatively few games then the chances are that the average score will be artificially high.
It is far easier to gain points in your first few hundred games then it is afterwards so 2 decent players on 200 games each will always have a higher aggregate than one player on 400 games. Its a bit late over here so my brain is numbing ,but would this problem be partly alleviated if the initial 1000 points that every player gets was disregarded ?

by weighting games instead of players we get the data we need to control for low player count. It will still be biased if we only have one or two players, but if there are three or more players from one country it will work out fine. Any countries with less than 500 games played would be too few to be valid.

This is all statistically ballparkish, but hey, no one is paying me.

Netherlands Rules!!! yeah

I'd say greece but my score is only in the 900s.

People from Japan kick the shit out of me all the time, but since I am from the good ol' US of A...I voted USA, of course. The poll will definitely show bias.

Just calculate (total_nations_points - nations_players*1000)/nations_players


For the average points gained per player of a nation. That should be a fairly good indicator of how "good" or "bad" a certain nation is at this-game-you-can-play-on-CC-which-is-not-Risk.