Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:50 pm**

Nice suggestion, I hope it gets implemented

Posted: **Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:51 pm**

I like this! Kill ratio is a good name. Does chappy get a saxbuck for that?

It should count each kill, including players eliminated in terminator games you didn't win. And every time you kill the same player it should count.

Posted: **Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:02 pm**

Good idea. Much more useful than win percentage.

One question about it though.

How would it work if somebody won using the objective? Like if they didn't actually eliminate any players, but won the game by capturing the objective. Would they still get the kills for all the other players, or a percentage of the players, or what?

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:40 am**

I support this suggestion. It makes much more sense than the actual formula.

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:21 am**

Thumbs up. Hope it gets implemented.

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:44 am**

tkr4lf wrote:Good idea. Much more useful than win percentage.

One question about it though.

How would it work if somebody won using the objective? Like if they didn't actually eliminate any players, but won the game by capturing the objective. Would they still get the kills for all the other players, or a percentage of the players, or what?

That would be the same as winning a standard game where you don't kill everyone.

Kill Ratio implies the people you actually kill, but that's not what it is. It's more like a weighted win percentage. Giving more weight to games with more players.

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:35 am**

chapcrap wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:Good idea. Much more useful than win percentage.

One question about it though.

How would it work if somebody won using the objective? Like if they didn't actually eliminate any players, but won the game by capturing the objective. Would they still get the kills for all the other players, or a percentage of the players, or what?

That would be the same as winning a standard game where you don't kill everyone.

Kill Ratio implies the people you actually kill, but that's not what it is. It's more like a weighted win percentage. Giving more weight to games with more players.

Ok, that sounds fair. With that issue out of the way, I would be fully in support of this suggestion.

Perhaps the OP can put up a poll so that support can be better gauged?

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:58 pm**

terminator games are still a tricky bunch to tackle, but i suppose it'll either work as if its just a normal game, or count as a 1v1 win for each kill you make.

but yeah, i support this, as win % is completely useless right now.

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:54 am**

Very nice suggestion. At the least, add this as a column on the Scoreboard and allow players to be ranked by Kill Ratio as well.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:10 pm**

chapcrap wrote:
agentcom wrote:...

The topic for an improved win percentage is here

...

This would be the best I think: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4&t=167052 (Kill Ratio)

Cross-posted from another thread.

Chap, why is this one better? Because it's not in rejected? I'm just skimming real quick, but they appear to be the same suggestion to me. In which case, are there any differences that would prevent me from merging?

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:50 pm**

agentcom wrote:
chapcrap wrote:
agentcom wrote:...

The topic for an improved win percentage is here

...

This would be the best I think: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=167052 (Kill Ratio)

Cross-posted from another thread.

Chap, why is this one better? Because it's not in rejected? I'm just skimming real quick, but they appear to be the same suggestion to me. In which case, are there any differences that would prevent me from merging?

I don't know that they are different. I was just bringing up that other thread as well.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:53 pm**

Thanks Chap.

These two suggestions look identical to me, so they have been MERGED. Additionally after reviewing that topic, I don't see any reason given by a moderator (or, well, anyone) not to do this, so I have MOVEDthe whole thing back into Suggestions.

It looks like the original OP, /boost isn't around anymore, so if Kaskavel or another player sees anything that needs to be added to the OP, he or she can alert me and I will do it.

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:11 pm**

bump!

Posted: **Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:20 pm**

patrickaa317 wrote:bump!

I think this is a good proposal and I'm gonna sticky it for now.

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:04 am**

demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.

Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:20 pm**

OliverFA wrote:
demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.

Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.

Not to mention that "we" already have this if "we" refers to the very, very, very small portion of us that use Maprank.

Posted: **Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:50 am**

OliverFA wrote:
demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.

Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.

Maybe you should read further then Oliver, since demonfork realised this proposal is not the same as relative rank.

I agree with this suggestion too.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:21 pm**

iAmCaffeine wrote:
OliverFA wrote:
demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.

Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.

Maybe you should read further then Oliver, since demonfork realised this proposal is not the same as relative rank.

I agree with this suggestion too.

I am not talking about he being right in his reasons to reject the proposal, I am talking about his wording. No need to add "And is retarded".

Posted: **Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:15 am**

OliverFA wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:
OliverFA wrote:
demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.

Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.

Maybe you should read further then Oliver, since demonfork realised this proposal is not the same as relative rank.

I agree with this suggestion too.

I am not talking about he being right in his reasons to reject the proposal, I am talking about his wording. No need to add "And is retarded".

Fair enough, sounded like both.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2014 6:25 pm**

or also add a stat that shows average opponents per game. Also, a unique opponent stat. Im not sure how many of you have played landgrab, but they keep tons of stats. I used to play there but CC has become superior in many aspects. Would I be breaking rules if I showed stat page from there?

Posted: **Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:24 am**

Bump. The suggestion had met almost complete acceptance.
In addition since last time it was discussed, it seems strange to have a subjective "most improved" scoreboard and not such an objective kill ratio one.

Posted: **Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:52 am**

agentcom wrote:This seems like a quick fix that would turn a useless stat that CC generates into a useful stat that CC generates.

+1

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 11:44 am**

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 11:46 am**

Kaskavel wrote:Concise description:
Create an extra stat in player's profile, offering a percentage of won games, including adjustment for how many players participate

Specifics/Details:
If a player wins a 6 player game, his percentage will adjust, just like he won 5 different games. If a player loses 7 games with 7 players, his score adjusts like he lost 1 game with one opponent, etc.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
The idea is that currently, the percentage victory scores on player profiles mean absolute nothing. They are random numbers that cannot get a meaning and create comparisons without studying what kind of games the player is participating. This way, the number, which will naturaly be around 40-60 % for most players, will have a definite objective meaning and 2 players can immediately be compared

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2015 12:00 pm**

I disagree with this, so it will not be implemented.

Conquer Club

[PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: winning rate

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Introduce "win rate" player stat to replace "percent won

Re: Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

Re: Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

Re: winning rate

Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

Re: winning rate

Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won