Moderator: Community Team

Robinette wrote:Depends on what metric you use...Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?
The coolest is squishyg
That would be the same as winning a standard game where you don't kill everyone.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?
Ok, that sounds fair. With that issue out of the way, I would be fully in support of this suggestion.chapcrap wrote:That would be the same as winning a standard game where you don't kill everyone.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?
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.
Cross-posted from another thread.chapcrap wrote:This would be the best I think: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4&t=167052 (Kill Ratio)
I don't know that they are different. I was just bringing up that other thread as well.agentcom wrote:Cross-posted from another thread.chapcrap wrote:This would be the best I think: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4&t=167052 (Kill Ratio)
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 think this is a good proposal and I'm gonna sticky it for now.patrickaa317 wrote:bump!
Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.
Not to mention that "we" already have this if "we" refers to the very, very, very small portion of us that use Maprank.OliverFA wrote:Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.
Maybe you should read further then Oliver, since demonfork realised this proposal is not the same as relative rank.OliverFA wrote:Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.

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".iAmCaffeine wrote:Maybe you should read further then Oliver, since demonfork realised this proposal is not the same as relative rank.OliverFA wrote:Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.
I agree with this suggestion too.
Fair enough, sounded like both.OliverFA wrote: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".iAmCaffeine wrote:Maybe you should read further then Oliver, since demonfork realised this proposal is not the same as relative rank.OliverFA wrote:Would be nice if people could express their objections backing them by arguments instead of unpoliteness.demonfork wrote:We already have this, it's called "relative rank" and it's retarded.
I agree with this suggestion too.

+1agentcom wrote:This seems like a quick fix that would turn a useless stat that CC generates into a useful stat that CC generates.
Kaskavel wrote:Concise description:Specifics/Details:
- Create an extra stat in player's profile, offering a percentage of won games, including adjustment for how many players participate
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
- 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.
- 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
