Page 3 of 8
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:23 am
by chipv
danodukebb wrote:Serial Killer (50%)361 i got that too!
Excellent. Now kill 361 people without losing and this would be awesome...
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:24 am
by danodukebb
haha sounds easy
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:41 am
by Scott-Land
Great job Chip-- thanks for all the hard work, especially hanging around and answering all of our questions !
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:51 am
by RiskTycoon
461! I went down and i haven't even finished any games since ..... hmmmm
Guess I'm a farmer lol
now where is my hoe
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:52 am
by Bruceswar
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:55 am
by MOBAJOBG
@chipv, ...thanks and I'm happy now with Point Hoarder (0.514)
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:56 am
by danodukebb
Yeah Chip thanks for the hard work mate!
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:56 am
by chipv
RiskTycoon wrote:461! I went down and i haven't even finished any games since ..... hmmmm
Guess I'm a farmer lol
now where is my hoe
You're 0.701 now. Get the new version and do a full rescan to see.
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:03 am
by qeee1
Post updates below this line:
________________________
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:09 am
by Kemmler
chipv wrote:RiskTycoon wrote:461! I went down and i haven't even finished any games since ..... hmmmm
Guess I'm a farmer lol
now where is my hoe
You're 0.701 now. Get the new version and do a full rescan to see.
if MOBAJOBG isnt a noob farmer with the update something must have gone wrong, the old one made sense
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:12 am
by chipv
Kemmler wrote:chipv wrote:RiskTycoon wrote:461! I went down and i haven't even finished any games since ..... hmmmm
Guess I'm a farmer lol
now where is my hoe
You're 0.701 now. Get the new version and do a full rescan to see.
if MOBAJOBG isnt a noob farmer with the update something must have gone wrong, the old one made sense
We're going to watch the results and then possibly change the level descriptions, but the numbers are fine.
The new numbers reflect all opponents played not just the kills now.
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:31 am
by qeee1
Kemmler wrote:if MOBAJOBG isnt a noob farmer with the update something must have gone wrong, the old one made sense
He has the second lowest that I've seen so far.
Also worth pointing out that this stat isn't conclusive in terms of pointing someone out as a noob hunter. As people have said it's impossible for the number 1 player to play people with a higher score than them, so they're always going to have a poor rating.
If you want to use this stat to determine noob hunters, you should look at how poor their kill rank is relative to their points score (over time). A rating of .65 might not be bad for someone who's been consistently around the 5000 point mark, but it probably is for somebody who's been around 2000.
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:36 am
by Kemmler
yeah thanks
and lol, someone scan rabbiton. worst noob farmer ever.
Re: highest/lowest relative kill rank
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:45 am
by comic boy
qeee1 wrote:Kemmler wrote:if MOBAJOBG isnt a noob farmer with the update something must have gone wrong, the old one made sense
He has the second lowest that I've seen so far.
Also worth pointing out that this stat isn't conclusive in terms of pointing someone out as a noob hunter. As people have said it's impossible for the number 1 player to play people with a higher score than them, so they're always going to have a poor rating.
If you want to use this stat to determine noob hunters, you should look at how poor their kill rank is relative to their points score (over time). A rating of .65 might not be bad for someone who's been consistently around the 5000 point mark, but it probably is for somebody who's been around 2000.
This post is spot on, obviously ones gearing will get progressively lower as their overall score increases. Consequently to get an accurate picture you have to compare those with similar ranks, a rating of 5 for a 3000 point player is fine if all generals are approx the same but not if they tend to average 7 or 8.
PS Can somebody work mine out
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:52 am
by bob3603
comic boy, yours is 0.951, pretty good for a high ranker.
Mine is 0.866.
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:58 am
by Matroshka
Hey I might make a list
1.180
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:02 pm
by KLOBBER
This is a long thread, and the supposed meaning behind these manufactured numbers is not detailed in the OP.
Can someone please explain what these numbers are supposed to represent?
How were they developed? Did someone just make them up? May as well, since these important details are conspicuous by their absence from the OP. If anyone actually has any answers to offer, it might be a good idea to edit the OP to include this information.
If not, then the numbers are worthless, actually.
I hope you have a wonderful day!
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:16 pm
by fireedud
I'm at: 1.540
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:25 pm
by hwhrhett
anyone look up benjij? or wrestlerlump?
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:32 pm
by qeee1
Updated as far as this post. Description added to bottom of first post.
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:38 pm
by Indianz Conquer
I am at my highest score to date... 1940, finally a captin lol
woo!!
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:16 pm
by KLOBBER
qeee1 wrote:UPDATE for new version of the script. Description of calculation at bottom.
Lowest
1. Torcav2 0.484
2. MOBAJOBG 0.514
3. SkyT 0.518
4. blitzaholic 0.560
5. KLOBBER 0.591
6. Thai Robert 0.597
7. JOHNNYROCKET24 0.606
8. sjnap 0.669
9. FabledIntegral 0.673
10. Scott-Land 0.694
11. RiskTycoon 0.708
12. poo-maker 0.713
13. Mike Doherty 0.727
14. Warsteiner 0.740
15. dcc1220 0.758
16. qeee1 0.778
17. rabbiton 0.790
18. bob3603 0.866
19. The Fuzzy Pengui 0.886
20. RashidJelzin 0.922
21. comic boy 0.951
22. Fruitcake 0.970
Highest
1. sexy_man 2.868
2. Deathseeker 2.543
3. stevebutabi 2.226
4. whcgonzo 2.149
5. freeke1976 1.858
6. Garner 1.809
7. Alangary 1.784
8. fireedud 1.540
9. Remix31 1.372
10. LB Ninja 1.212
11. Matroshka 1.180
12. lozzini 1.147
13. danodukebb 1.143
14. guylian 1.051
Post names and I'll add them
Relative Rank Calculation
This is the average relative rank of all opponents played.
If you play opponents exactly the same rank as yours all the time then Relative Rank = 1.000.
Example: Your score at the end of a game is 3000.
Everyone else has a score of 1500. So the average rank of your opponent is 1500.
Average relative rank = 1500 / 3000 = 0.5
Note that the score is calculated based on your score at each game end time, not your current score.
I see. So, basically, anyone with a higher score than his opponents will rank below 1, while those with lower scores will rank above 1.
I can deal with that.
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:18 pm
by Curmudgeonx
hwhrhett wrote:anyone look up benjij? or wrestlerlump?
Whump was a cook/cadet for so long, playing a noob improved his score. Now that he is more proficient, it is interesting to note that on Circus Maximus, Whump has a .783 relative rank, and KLOBBER has a .513 Circus Maximus relative rank.
I have an overall .996 relative rank, which is kinda depressing that after 1500+ games, I am getting better only at a glacier-esque pace.
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:33 pm
by daydream
Equalitarian (0.810)
its decent i guess...
Re: highest/lowest relative rank UPDATED
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:35 pm
by KLOBBER
All that number translates to is that my ACTUAL rank is higher than the average rank of my opponents.
All having above 1 translates to is that your actual rank is lower than that of the average of your opponents.
These numbers are pretty much meaningless, with no relation to actual game skill.