Moderator: Community Team
oVo wrote:Is there more?
Because I'm confused by how the ratings thingy effects the scoring system.
Maybe proof isn't required to understand if a tricycle riding gibbon prefers it's donuts in a bag or a box,
but that doesn't even take into account if they are jelly filled or have sprinkles or who's keeping score.
hecter wrote:If this were the case, then they would have less ratings received as well. If they do, then you're correct in your assumption. If they don't, then it seems that high ranked players just don't like giving out ratings.
jpliberty wrote:hecter wrote:If this were the case, then they would have less ratings received as well. If they do, then you're correct in your assumption. If they don't, then it seems that high ranked players just don't like giving out ratings.
You can look it up yourself, just go to the handy scoreboard and look up the ratings received and left.
Real interesting stuff to be found there if you start with the highest ranked player and work down.
Then, look at the percentage of BS freestyle games played by those who might have a fair number of unique opponents (freestyle games against the uninitiated represent perhaps the greatest number of points taken in by these scamsters).
I say "perhaps"...cause I long have believed that if one truly wants to find multis, one would start by examining the top scorers, their play history and if their "opponents" actually exist, separately from the top scorers.
hecter wrote:jpliberty wrote:hecter wrote:If this were the case, then they would have less ratings received as well. If they do, then you're correct in your assumption. If they don't, then it seems that high ranked players just don't like giving out ratings.
You can look it up yourself, just go to the handy scoreboard and look up the ratings received and left.
Real interesting stuff to be found there if you start with the highest ranked player and work down.
Then, look at the percentage of BS freestyle games played by those who might have a fair number of unique opponents (freestyle games against the uninitiated represent perhaps the greatest number of points taken in by these scamsters).
I say "perhaps"...cause I long have believed that if one truly wants to find multis, one would start by examining the top scorers, their play history and if their "opponents" actually exist, separately from the top scorers.
See, the thing is that I don't really care... I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in your statements by saying that you should look at ratings left, when ratings received would provide a much better idea at how many unique players they play.
ParadiceCity9 wrote:How exactly does high ranks not leaving ratings prove that the scoring system is rigged?
Gilligan wrote:I'M SO GOOD AT THIS GAME
My stepmom locked the bathroom door
So I opened the lock with my shoelace
ParadiceCity9 wrote:How exactly does high ranks not leaving ratings prove that the scoring system is rigged?
bbqpenguin wrote:i have rated precicely 0 people. which means nothing, except that i don't care enough about the new rating system to bother. this has nothing to do with my score
mpjh wrote:It is a free country (game) and people can play who they want. They certainly don't have to play you just because you want it.
joecoolfrog wrote:See the problem with these 'envy ' posts is that they have one striking thing in common, they are all authored by crap players !
mpjh wrote:It is a free country (game) and people can play who they want. They certainly don't have to play you just because you want it.
mpjh wrote:Seems simple enough to give full information. Calculate the statistic showing how many unique players the person has played against and include it on the wall for each player.
jpliberty wrote:mpjh wrote:It is a free country (game) and people can play who they want. They certainly don't have to play you just because you want it.
Of course people can choose their opponents. And, that's one way the system is gamed.
And I don't care if higher ranked players won't play me...I don't recognize any achievement in their score nor do I find pleasure in my own score. And, if higher ranked players suddenly were to flood into my games, well, I'd just whup em anyway.
KLOBBER wrote:mpjh wrote:Seems simple enough to give full information. Calculate the statistic showing how many unique players the person has played against and include it on the wall for each player.
That does not really address the issue.
The issue is whether or not the scoring system actually reflects each respective player's skill level at the game, which a simple listing of number of opponents defeated does not do.
In order to reflect actual skill level, the statistic would have to take into account the number of games that each respective member has finished, in addition to the number of opponents he defeated in those games.
mpjh wrote:Who cares? Many of us are here for the enjoyment of the game and score and ranking are just minor indicia of our achievement/ If we want to play the same 10 people over and over, well, that is our choice. We don't need to flop it on the table and measure against yours.
jpliberty wrote:mpjh wrote:Who cares? Many of us are here for the enjoyment of the game and score and ranking are just minor indicia of our achievement/ If we want to play the same 10 people over and over, well, that is our choice. We don't need to flop it on the table and measure against yours.
Certainly. So, why have ranks?
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users