Conquer Club

I am looking for players that have played at least 500 games on a map with sequential turns 1v1 games.

My best is Arms Race
1784 of 2724 for 65%

As a side note playing at least 100 games:

I have Great Lakes 88 of 138 for 64%

and St Patrick's Day 222 of 362 for 61%

Please only post 1v1 sequential--you can do this with game finder using Map Rank. If you need me to check one for you just ask.

If you want to post other settings start another thread and then we can compare. I know that freestyle settings can get really high percentages. I know that some doubles can get really high percentages. I am just looking for sequential 1v1 with at least 500 games played on the map. If you have not played 500 games on a map post what you have with at least 100 games.

Thanks

I have no maps with more than 100 games on it
My best is classic:

Classic2 Sergeant 1st Class177 +423 45 from 69(65%) 42 Serial Killer (65%)27 Equalitarian (1.039)

Over 500: world 2.1 72% (FS 81%)

at 100 sequential 1v1s I also have 82% win rate on das schloss.


My overall win rate on all sequential 1v1s is 61%

(this is why I was surprised your highest win rate on your map was 64% Highlander. But on arms race, 64% is really good since dice are so important. Though I think incandenza pulled off 74% win rate on 1v1s. He only played 75 of them, but thats still plenty to count as a fair win rate.

Ill get you started here with a list, you can copy it and ill delete this one.

500+ Sequential 1v1 GAMES WIN PERCENTAGE PER MAP

Alstergren Classic 85%
AAFitz World 2.1 72%
Highlanderattack Arms race! 64%
KraphtOne Arms Race!(59%)
elfish_lad Route 66 58%
elfish_lad Ireland 58%
KraphtOne Classic (56%)
Player Age Of Realms 54%

i guess there are less than 5 players who played 500 games on one map 1vs1 seq.
Seems to be very boring... my best is world 2.1 with 23/33 games and 69%. I lost a few in a tourney where the enemies play better than in public games but I never lost when I went first.

knubbel wrote:i guess there are less than 5 players who played 500 games on one map 1vs1 seq.
Seems to be very boring... my best is world 2.1 with 23/33 games and 69%. I lost a few in a tourney where the enemies play better than in public games but I never lost when I went first.

I doubt that. This thread hasnt been there for long. Jr himself might even have more than one map with 500 games on it.

67% on Poison Rome. 72% with manual deployment.

I think that Mine is 70% on Prob. Chicago. Not really sure, as I had to delete Bob and Maprank because they were screwing up my computer.

porkenbeans wrote:I think that Mine is 70% on Prob. Chicago. Not really sure, as I had to delete Bob and Maprank because they were screwing up my computer.

It is exactly that.

nothing over 500
although
3 maps over 100

midkemdil 66 from 102 (65%)
classic 139 from 256 (54%)
aor1 96 from 169 (57%)

AAFitz wrote:Over 500: world 2.1 75%

at 91 sequential 1v1s I also have 81% win rate on das schloss.

My overall win rate on all sequential 1v1s is 61%

(this is why I was surprised your highest win rate on your map was 64% Highlander. But on arms race, 64% is really good since dice are so important. Though I think incandenza pulled off 74% win rate on 1v1s. He only played 75 of them, but thats still plenty to count as a fair win rate.

Your world 2.1 is amazing.

I have you with 593 of 819 for 72%, but on an even map that will most likely be near the top of this list as I compile it. It may be number one. I can understand das schloss as it is new map and difficult for people to get on the learning curve, but with that said, still very impressive and as time goes by I would expect you to stay above 70% on that one too.

Very nice.

HighlanderAttack wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Over 500: world 2.1 75%

at 91 sequential 1v1s I also have 81% win rate on das schloss.

My overall win rate on all sequential 1v1s is 61%

(this is why I was surprised your highest win rate on your map was 64% Highlander. But on arms race, 64% is really good since dice are so important. Though I think incandenza pulled off 74% win rate on 1v1s. He only played 75 of them, but thats still plenty to count as a fair win rate.

Your world 2.1 is amazing.

I have you with 593 of 819 for 72%, but on an even map that will most likely be near the top of this list as I compile it. It may be number one. I can understand das schloss as it is new map and difficult for people to get on the learning curve, but with that said, still very impressive and as time goes by I would expect you to stay above 70% on that one too.

Very nice.

Sorry, I didnt copy it, just did it from memory, and apparently added 3% for myself and again, your rate at 64% on arms considering the luck factor on that puppy is impressive too. I know mine is barely over 50% on it embarrassingly enough.

And Das Schloss..yes... I stole wins on that map...but had a damn blast doing it. Ill play another 25 and see what happens.

knubbel wrote:i guess there are less than 5 players who played 500 games on one map 1vs1 seq.
Seems to be very boring... my best is world 2.1 with 23/33 games and 69%. I lost a few in a tourney where the enemies play better than in public games but I never lost when I went first.

I think you will be surprised to find out that there are a lot of players with maps they have played over 500 games 1v1 sq, but we shall see as they post. Many players like myself use the same map in sports tourneys and that is where the numbers start adding up. I use arms race in all the sports league tourneys. For example I play 41 times on arms race in the nba.

I don't have maprank, but I was in Blutz's "top ten" for AOR2 for a while. Else, I just have no idea.

As this thread gets bigger I will map rank players that don't have it. This is just a curiosity thing as I think anything over 60% with sequential 1v1 settings is great.

I like to think I'm doing well on New World.

New World Sergeant +387 84 from 135(62%) 68 Serial Killer (62%)69 Equalitarian (0.918)

It's the Equalitarian part that is important for boasting rights.

86

AAFitz wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:I think that Mine is 70% on Prob. Chicago. Not really sure, as I had to delete Bob and Maprank because they were screwing up my computer.

It is exactly that.

Cool, thanx a lot.

Agent 86 wrote:I like to think I'm doing well on New World.

New World Sergeant +387 84 from 135(62%) 68 Serial Killer (62%)69 Equalitarian (0.918)

It's the Equalitarian part that is important for boasting rights.

86

Yes I agree, Your EQ. status is the true measure, if you want to know if someone is a Farmer or not.

Player...none over 500 but many over or close to 100

Age Of Merchants1 Sergeant23 +377 83 from 154(54%)
Age Of Realms 1 Corporal10 +190 68 from 135(50%) 57
Age Of Realms 225 Major202 +1298 696 from 1300(54%)
Arms Race!5 Corporal 1st Class79 +221 160 from 312(51%)
Bamboo Jack Sergeant42 +358 47 from 70(67%)
City Mogul Corporal 1st Class31 +269 48 from 84(57%)
Classic1 Cadet85 -185 98 from 203(48%)
Feudal War9 Cook533 -733 144 from 302(48%)
New World1 Corporal 1st Class48 +252 75 from 125(60%)
Pearl Harbor7 Lieutenant26 +774 97 from 149(65%)
Peloponnesian War Cadet74 -174 54 from 111(49%)
Saint Patricks Day Cadet42 -142 48 from 106(45%)

This is my best... well, my best for a map that actually has some games behind it. It also happens to be my most played map 1v1.

Chinese Checkers 55 from 79(70%) Equalitarian (0.860)

porkenbeans wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:I like to think I'm doing well on New World.

New World Sergeant +387 84 from 135(62%) 68 Serial Killer (62%)69 Equalitarian (0.918)

It's the Equalitarian part that is important for boasting rights.

86

Yes I agree, Your EQ. status is the true measure, if you want to know if someone is a Farmer or not.

except that the EQ is very dependent upon the rank you had while winning the games. To say someone with 3000 points at all times playing 1v1s is somehow more of a farmer than someone who happens to only maintain 1500 points while playing them is ridiculous.

The rating alone means nothing.Its just as easy to manipulate your EQ as it is to farm. The rating alone means nothing... the average or median rank of your opponent would be a better measure, and even that changes, because some really good players have low ranks at times.

The one closest to 500 i have is Age of Realms 1 on sequential.

405 games, out of which i won 69%.

Brings back memories of the time i did nothing but Age of Realms 1 (or Might as it was called back then).

In total i've played 1754 1v1 sequential games and won 62%.

Doodle Earth Private 1st Class63 +37 58 from 108(54%) 38 Serial Killer (54%)92 Equalitarian (0.981)

Duck And Cover Lieutenant112 +688 96 from 159(60%) 81 Serial Killer (60%)93 Equalitarian (1.040)

Feudal War Corporal 1st Class64 +236 70 from 127(55%) 51 Serial Killer (55%)101 Equalitarian (1.020)

never used map rank before, very interesting.

These are what I have over 100 games. I guess i'm happy i'm a equalitarian in all, including my total 1v1 seq rank.

AAFitz wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:I like to think I'm doing well on New World.

New World Sergeant +387 84 from 135(62%) 68 Serial Killer (62%)69 Equalitarian (0.918)

It's the Equalitarian part that is important for boasting rights.

86

Yes I agree, Your EQ. status is the true measure, if you want to know if someone is a Farmer or not.

except that the EQ is very dependent upon the rank you had while winning the games. To say someone with 3000 points at all times playing 1v1s is somehow more of a farmer than someone who happens to only maintain 1500 points while playing them is ridiculous.

The rating alone means nothing.Its just as easy to manipulate your EQ as it is to farm. The rating alone means nothing... the average or median rank of your opponent would be a better measure, and even that changes, because some really good players have low ranks at times.

It does mean something. You just need to know how to interpret the info. A very high rank will always tend to keep a slightly lower RR. As you climb up into the higher ranks, the pool of players are gradually going to fall below your rank. This is going to lower your RR as you climb the ranks, but, it is NOT going to lower it to the point of noob farmer.

My case is a prime example of this. Most all of my games are started by me, and I have no say as to who joins them. So, the average rank of my opponents have stayed the same, but my rank has gone up. I do not know what my RR is now, but I will bet that I am still an EQ., or close to it.

I don't have nearly enough games in to be anywhere close to 500 on any map, but I do have a couple of pretty good 1v1 lines. With Arms Race, I started out something insane like 90% (like fitz on das schloss, I definitely stole a few of them while people were still learning the map), but have since settled in to a more realistic stat line...

Waterloo 93-29 76%
Arms Race! 56-20 74%

porkenbeans wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:I like to think I'm doing well on New World.

New World Sergeant +387 84 from 135(62%) 68 Serial Killer (62%)69 Equalitarian (0.918)

It's the Equalitarian part that is important for boasting rights.

86

Yes I agree, Your EQ. status is the true measure, if you want to know if someone is a Farmer or not.

except that the EQ is very dependent upon the rank you had while winning the games. To say someone with 3000 points at all times playing 1v1s is somehow more of a farmer than someone who happens to only maintain 1500 points while playing them is ridiculous.

The rating alone means nothing.Its just as easy to manipulate your EQ as it is to farm. The rating alone means nothing... the average or median rank of your opponent would be a better measure, and even that changes, because some really good players have low ranks at times.

It does mean something. You just need to know how to interpret the info. A very high rank will always tend to keep a slightly lower RR. As you climb up into the higher ranks, the pool of players are gradually going to fall below your rank. This is going to lower your RR as you climb the ranks, but, it is NOT going to lower it to the point of noob farmer.



My case is a prime example of this. Most all of my games are started by me, and I have no say as to who joins them. So, the average rank of my opponents have stayed the same, but my rank has gone up. I do not know what my RR is now, but I will bet that I am still an EQ., or close to it.

You are not a prime example though, because many have ranks far better than major...hell, major is a low rank...when i drop this low, I use the opportunity to gain points on maps. Those at the top of the scoreboard will always look like noob farmers because their score is so high. It is only the rank of the opponents that truly matters. Your rank at the time is irrelevant to your skill, and easily manipulated, so it is for all intensive purposes, not a good stat.

And I am a prime example, because I have 7 or 8000 points on world, but If I only ever played world, and didnt lose lots, and lots on other maps, my relative rank would be ridiculous, and I possibly would not even have won any points even at 75% win rate.