Conquer Club

At 4pm Mountain Time, US on 3/10/2009 the relative rank of the top 100 players on the scoreboard is as follows:

Keep in mind that this is not the top 100 relatively ranked players on the site, I don't have to time to calculate anymore than 100 players...

Also, If someone can teach me how to make a list or make tabs in BBCode, PM me...

Without further ado:

Relative Rank.... Scoreboard Rank.... Name.... Points....x Relative %....= Relative Score

1. 2 sjnap 6066 x 0.608 = 3688
2. 6 Dustine 4121 x 0.883 = 3639
3. 14 thezepman 3680 x 0.919 = 3382
4. 28 Thomas.Paine 3516 x 0.952 = 3347
5. 47 hatchman 3198 x 1.046 = 3345
6. 15 demonfork 3641 x 0.917 = 3339
7. 10 Fruitcake 3867 x 0.859 = 3322
8. 24 joecoolfrog 3537 x 0.939 = 3321
9. 3 rabbiton 4531 x 0.733 = 3321
10. 5 Velvecarrots 4240 x 0.777 = 3294
11. 48 waynemgough 3193 x 1.006 = 3212
12. 11 Seulessliathan 3815 x 0.825 = 3147
13. 49 mikiesdios 3176 x 0.985 = 3128
14. 13 Chariot of Fire 3682 x 0.846 = 3115
15. 9 General Mojo 3904 x 0.797 = 3111
16. 36 comic boy 3356 x 0.925 = 3104
17. 29 merz 3490 x 0.881 = 3075
18. 8 timmy1 3922 x 0.782 = 3067
19. 72 narnia 3029 x 1.005 = 3044
20. 50 jbeaver 3165 x 0.956 = 3026
21. 68 superrag 3037 x 0.993 = 3016
22. 21 Beadle 3566 x 0.837 = 2985
23. 43 el counto 3221 x 0.897 = 2889
24. 4 poo-maker 4470 x 0.638 = 2852
25. 23 Teylen 3544 x 0.804 = 2849
26. 60 Kaze 3106 x 0.917 = 2848
27. 1 King_Herpes 6076 x 0.468 = 2844
28. 54 PepperJack 3132 x 0.906 = 2838
29. 7 bridge2far 4044 x 0.699 = 2827
30. 65 jpeter15 3053 x 0.922 = 2815
31. 52 RL_Orange 3153 x 0.889 = 2803
32. 82 steve066 2967 x 0.942 = 2795
33. 18 chephren 3584 x 0.772 = 2767
34. 27 ballenus 3524 x 0.775 = 2731
35. 79 Clearwater fl 2984 x 0.911 = 2718
36. 99 sam02 2860 x 0.937 = 2680
37. 53 jalen45 3136 x 0.845 = 2650
38. 55 FarangDemon 3132 x 0.846 = 2650
39. 73 ahunda 3017 x 0.876 = 2643
40. 93 Forefall 2881 x 0.911 = 2625
41. 37 Hesoos 3356 x 0.778 = 2611
42. 51 MaryMac21 3156 x 0.826 = 2607
43. 56 JustCallMeStupid 3129 x 0.829 = 2594
44. 32 David_Wain 3404 x 0.752 = 2560
45. 69 bamage 3036 x 0.836 = 2538
46. 26 prismsaber 3525 x 0.716 = 2524
47. 92 likemee 2884 x 0.875 = 2524
48. 58 Bruceswar 3114 x 0.81 = 2522
49. 74 bamage 3010 x 0.836 = 2516
50. 19 laddida 3577 x 0.701 = 2507
51. 84 agonzos 2967 x 0.84 = 2492
52. 66 firstholliday 3049 x 0.811 = 2473
53. 34 maniacmath17 3375 x 0.722 = 2437
54. 95 droopy 2875 x 0.84 = 2415
55. 12 lt.pie 3715 x 0.642 = 2385
56. 67 pjdonald 3040 x 0.781 = 2374
57. 46 aliakber1001 3204 x 0.741 = 2374
58. 96 hiddeous man 2866 x 0.824 = 2362
59. 71 keyborn 3030 x 0.778 = 2357
60. 61 Aaarrrrggh 3103 x 0.747 = 2318
61. 89 White Moose 2912 x 0.795 = 2315
62. 64 Wolffystyle 3068 x 0.751 = 2304
63. 35 Me-Da-MiNoRiTY 3364 x 0.68 = 2288
64. 90 jf_520 2898 x 0.785 = 2275
65. 85 Apaulus 2962 x 0.763 = 2260
66. 91 Selin 2897 x 0.78 = 2260
67. 80 gp24176281 2973 x 0.757 = 2251
68. 38 loes 3285 x 0.685 = 2250
69. 30 AMGecko 3454 x 0.65 = 2245
70. 57 Ruben Cassar 3117 x 0.717 = 2235
71. 75 Talisker 3004 x 0.738 = 2217
72. 25 Big Whiskey 3534 x 0.626 = 2212
73. 88 lanyards 2916 x 0.756 = 2204
74. 41 karelpietertje 3234 x 0.677 = 2189
75. 62 Stbtgal 3094 x 0.703 = 2175
76. 33 kumanovac 3398 x 0.64 = 2175
77. 100 Donkey 2855 x 0.755 = 2156
78. 59 kenbeuken 3114 x 0.687 = 2139
79. 97 rugbylover 2864 x 0.743 = 2128
80. 16 mhennigan 3630 x 0.585 = 2124
81. 44 dividedbyzero 3212 x 0.66 = 2120
82. 87 K2_recon 2929 x 0.717 = 2100
83. 45 larsin 3204 x 0.654 = 2095
84. 20 Gustaf Wasa 3569 x 0.585 = 2088
85. 101 Bonomo101 2853 x 0.73 = 2083
86. 40 jabajabba 3248 x 0.641 = 2082
87. 22 Kiron 3565 x 0.58 = 2068
88. 31 3Asefa 3408 x 0.598 = 2038
89. 39 djt5483 3282 x 0.62 = 2035
90. 70 ksslemp 3034 x 0.667 = 2024
91. 42 Lingfish 3231 x 0.626 = 2023
92. 83 General K 2967 x 0.679 = 2015
93. 77 Scott-Land 2994 x 0.666 = 1994
94. 63 nachito 3075 x 0.638 = 1962
95. 78 PriestVallon 2988 x 0.649 = 1939
96. 94 moonsoon7 2880 x 0.623 = 1794
97. 86 doolman 2958 x 0.594 = 1757
98. 17 SkyT 3586 x 0.487 = 1746
99. 76 jac99 2999 x 0.574 = 1721
100. 98 perrbear 2861 x 0.599 = 1714
101. 81 MOBAJOBG 2969 x 0.468 = 1389

This post is saved for commentary on relative rank...when I have more time.

Arguments FOR Relative Ranking:

• Scoreboard is adjusted to show a more meritocratic hierarchy of players. *Contested
• Serves as a better analysis tool.
• Curbs score inflation.
• Rank better reflects skill.
• High ranked players are then encouraged to play alongside low rank players in team games.
• Thou shalt never eat a salami sandwich past 11pm.

Arguments AGAINST Relative Ranking:

• Relative Rank does not always function correctly as seen: here. Players with lower scores can rank the same as (or even higher than) better players who have played the same "basket" of players.
• One can raise her score merely by playing higher ranked players.
• With too much emphasis on relativity, low-ranked players won't have the opportunity to play high-ranked players.
• Inherent to the nature of this site (different maps, settings, number of players in game et. al.) there are many scenarios where it is much harder to gain points even against low ranked players (i.e. 8 player games with 6 cadets and 2 brigs)
• The current scoring system is already slightly relative.
• Promotes elitism.
• Encourages Map Specialization.
• Rewards those who have been in the mediocre ranks for the majority of their CC career while punishing the quick risers.

Helpful forum links:
A Brief Description of RR's Calculation
Changing the Way We Score
Preventing Farming
Non-Farmers Guild
CC Map Rank GL Discussion on RR
Equalitarian Leaderboard
Multiple Scoreboards
Top Players Overrated (and why they're not...)
Arithmatic v. Geometic Means

benjamenlewis wrote:This post is saved for commentary on relative rank...when I have more time.

Good, so I won't have to say it.

It's a meaningless number...

Relative Rank? Relative to what?

Rocket.

I'm going to pre-empt you and say that rr has already been debunked from numerous angles as a useless statistic. Nuff said.

prismsaber wrote:I'm going to pre-empt you and say that rr has already been debunked from numerous angles as a useless statistic. Nuff said.

.....in your opinion. Please don't assume everyone agrees with you.

Relative Rank is a 'Love it or Loathe it' kind of scoring system. The truth is that there are many arguments on either side for and against a relative ranking system. This thread should serve to foster discussion and debate on a relative ranking system of scoring.

For those of you who are unaware: Relativity is measured by comparing or relating one thing to something else. The current scoring system operates on an absolute level; ranks are determined solely by point total (score). In this case, the 'something else' that one's score would be related to would be the scores of players he/she/it has played against.

I could give scientific examples but I'll stick to an easier one that is probably more fitting to our Conquer Club scenario:

A basketball team ends their season with a record of 31-0. Another basketball team in the same town ends their season with a record of 25-6. Clearly the first team is better, right? No. The first team is a high school basketball team and played in the lowest division. The second team is a college team who played all their games in the highest division. The second team, despite it's "worse" record is the better team.

This is the simplest example I could give. One can make the argument that we're all playing in the same "division", sure. I'll take that as a valid argument, however, I can also argue that we're clearly not all players of the same caliber and that our opponents skills must be taken into consideration when determining rank.

Please discuss...

benjamenlewis wrote:Relative Rank is a 'Love it or Loathe it' kind of scoring system. The truth is that there are many arguments on either side for and against a relative ranking system. This thread should serve to foster discussion and debate on a relative ranking system of scoring.

For those of you who are unaware: Relativity is measured by comparing or relating one thing to something else. The current scoring system operates on an absolute level; ranks are determined solely by point total (score). In this case, the 'something else' that one's score would be related to would be the scores of players he/she/it has played against.

I could give scientific examples but I'll stick to an easier one that is probably more fitting to our Conquer Club scenario:

A basketball team ends their season with a record of 31-0. Another basketball team in the same town ends their season with a record of 25-6. Clearly the first team is better, right? No. The first team is a high school basketball team and played in the lowest division. The second team is a college team who played all their games in the highest division. The second team, despite it's "worse" record is the better team.

This is the simplest example I could give. One can make the argument that we're all playing in the same "division", sure. I'll take that as a valid argument, however, I can also argue that we're clearly not all players of the same caliber and that our opponents skills must be taken into consideration when determining rank.

Please discuss...

Your basketball reference may be true, but that is not the same in CC. If someone's relative rank is higher than someone else, it does not mean they're better. It doesn't even mean they've played against players with a higher score!

TheBro wrote:
Your basketball reference may be true, but that is not the same in CC. If someone's relative rank is higher than someone else, it does not mean they're better. It doesn't even mean they've played against players with a higher score!

Well that's not quite correct. If two high ranked players of the same score have differing RR, then the player with the higher RR must have been playing higher scoring opposition. It is a natural progression to shed RR as one climbs the board, it is a natural event, the lower the score of the opposition, the faster RR is shed.

TheBro wrote:
Your basketball reference may be true, but that is not the same in CC. If someone's relative rank is higher than someone else, it does not mean they're better. It doesn't even mean they've played against players with a higher score!

Help me out here. Explain that last part a little more. How can I play others with lower scores while keeping a higher relative rank?

benjamenlewis wrote:

TheBro wrote:
Your basketball reference may be true, but that is not the same in CC. If someone's relative rank is higher than someone else, it does not mean they're better. It doesn't even mean they've played against players with a higher score!

Help me out here. Explain that last part a little more. How can I play others with lower scores while keeping a higher relative rank?

Assume my score is 6000, I play against all brigs, my relative rank is then .5
Assume my score is 2000, I play against all majors, my relative rank is 1

The Neon Peon wrote:

benjamenlewis wrote:

TheBro wrote:
Your basketball reference may be true, but that is not the same in CC. If someone's relative rank is higher than someone else, it does not mean they're better. It doesn't even mean they've played against players with a higher score!

Help me out here. Explain that last part a little more. How can I play others with lower scores while keeping a higher relative rank?

Assume my score is 6000, I play against all brigs, my relative rank is then .5
Assume my score is 2000, I play against all majors, my relative rank is 1

Assume my score is 6000, I play against all brigs, my relative rank is then .5 Relative Score=3000
Assume my score is 2000, I play against all majors, my relative rank is 1 Relative Score= 2000

Player 1 still has a higher rank even after the filter of relativity.

But, your point is still noted in the second post in this topic. I will compile arguments there.

**An interesting point, however, would be made if player 2 played against all Brigs too... Both players would then have the same relative rank (RR=3000). Clearly, however, Player 1 is much better. This is a scenario where Absolute Rank works more effectively!**

You are forgetting (or at least not mentioning) the fact that the number of points you get from winning a game is based on the score of your opponent. So the current scoring system is already relative.

Besides, how do you imagine your plan to be when it actually be actually CC's scoring system?
When a lowrank joins a game with a lot of highranks, the servers will have to immediately adjust the score of all those players.
We (I consider myself one of the highranks) will only start making private games to play with eachother.
Already there are lots of games for a certain rank and above. That will just happen more with your idiotic plans!

If a cook ever wants to get a better rank, he will have to play cadets, privates, lieutenants! But nobody will play a cook, because even if they win, their score will be lower because they played with a lower scored person.

You, benjamenlewis, will be the source of all this future intolerance on CC if you continue this list.
Do you really want your future children to be ashamed of being kids of the most hated man on CC? I can't believe that you do.

KP

karelpietertje wrote:You, benjamenlewis, will be the source of all this future intolerance on CC if you continue this list.
Do you really want your future children to be ashamed of being kids of the most hated man on CC? I can't believe that you do.

KP

Your points are extremely valid and they have been noted above.

I am not trying to change the scoring system. I am merely trying to offer a new way to look at, analyze and ultimately view our scores. The current system, although not perfect, functions and I have no intention of wiping it out!

-Ben

Here's the problem with relative rank.

Player A's rank hovers around 1,500 points for his first 1,000 games. Something clicks in his head and he achieves his true potential, and rises to the rank of Brigadier with 3,000 points at a total of 1,200 games played.

Player B is a much faster learner and is already at 2,500 points at about 300 games played. For his next 900 games, he continues to slowly rise on the scoreboard.

Assume both players play exclusively random public games.

Player A will have a much higher relative rank than Player B simply because he wallowed around in mediocrity for hundreds and hundreds of games. But which is the more impressive player? Well, you could be tempted to say Player B but that's still not true. You have to play both players, for that is the only measure that really counts and any thinking man will agree.

Another way rr can be manipulated is a high ranker partnering a low ranker, say a cook, so this his team's relative score is artificially made to be more comparable to his opponents team.

prismsaber wrote:
Another way rr can be manipulated is a high ranker partnering a low ranker, say a cook, so this his team's relative score is artificially made to be more comparable to his opponents team.

Simple answer...play with a cook rather than against a cook.

You gain more points in a win, the cook learns, your RR stays higher.....where's the down side?

Fruitcake wrote:

prismsaber wrote:
Another way rr can be manipulated is a high ranker partnering a low ranker, say a cook, so this his team's relative score is artificially made to be more comparable to his opponents team.

Simple answer...play with a cook rather than against a cook.

You gain more points in a win, the cook learns, your RR stays higher.....where's the down side?

It's a great way to keep maintain and increase your score, no doubt about it. There is no down side. I am just showing the original poster that relative rank can be manipulated and is therefore a relatively useless statistic.

Fruitcake wrote:

prismsaber wrote:
Another way rr can be manipulated is a high ranker partnering a low ranker, say a cook, so this his team's relative score is artificially made to be more comparable to his opponents team.

Simple answer...play with a cook rather than against a cook.

You gain more points in a win, the cook learns, your RR stays higher.....where's the down side?

Steady on, old bean! The cook won't stay a cook for long with a good lead.

prismsaber wrote:Here's the problem with relative rank.

Player A's rank hovers around 1,500 points for his first 1,000 games. Something clicks in his head and he achieves his true potential, and rises to the rank of Brigadier with 3,000 points at a total of 1,200 games played.

Player B is a much faster learner and is already at 2,500 points at about 300 games played. For his next 900 games, he continues to slowly rise on the scoreboard.

Assume both players play exclusively random public games.

Player A will have a much higher relative rank than Player B simply because he wallowed around in mediocrity for hundreds and hundreds of games. But which is the more impressive player? Well, you could be tempted to say Player B but that's still not true. You have to play both players, for that is the only measure that really counts and any thinking man will agree.

Another way rr can be manipulated is a high ranker partnering a low ranker, say a cook, so this his team's relative score is artificially made to be more comparable to his opponents team.

That was my point.

Relative rank is 100% bullshit.

I recently played a 1v1 against a lieutenant on one of the new maps. Lieutenants aren't exactly low ranked or easy to "farm" in my book.... I won and my relative rank says .500 point hoarder. So to anyone who map ranks me gets the impression I "farmed" that map...

LOL. It is nearly impossible to guarantee equalitarian on everything if you don't seek out private games against other colonels and above. Especially if you are just playing for fun.

EagleofGreenErth wrote:Relative rank is 100% bullshit.
I recently played a 1v1 against a lieutenant on one of the new maps. Lieutenants aren't exactly low ranked or easy to "farm" in my book.... I won and my relative rank says .500 point hoarder. So to anyone who map ranks me gets the impression I "farmed" that map...
LOL. It is nearly impossible to guarantee equalitarian on everything if you don't seek out private games against other colonels and above. Especially if you are just playing for fun.

If you're just playing for fun, what does it matter?

chipv wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

prismsaber wrote:
Another way rr can be manipulated is a high ranker partnering a low ranker, say a cook, so this his team's relative score is artificially made to be more comparable to his opponents team.

Simple answer...play with a cook rather than against a cook.

You gain more points in a win, the cook learns, your RR stays higher.....where's the down side?

Steady on, old bean! The cook won't stay a cook for long with a good lead.

Indeed he won't. By the time he is ready to fly then it's job done.

Drastic example:

ouyin2000 has a score of 21, and a relative rank of 8.613.

Say ouyin2000 wins a battle royale on World 2.1, stealing 100 points from 112 other players. His score is now 11221, and say his RR is still 8.613.

11221 x 8.613 = 96646.

Yes, even the current system would allow this player to reach a ridiculous score, but the relative score is an even mroe meaningless number.

When can we get an "average score" statistic? It can help put things into perspective.

Velvecarrots wrote:Drastic example:

ouyin2000 has a score of 21, and a relative rank of 8.613.

Say ouyin2000 wins a battle royale on World 2.1, stealing 100 points from 112 other players. His score is now 11221, and say his RR is still 8.613.

11221 x 8.613 = 96646.

Yes, even the current system would allow this player to reach a ridiculous score, but the relative score is an even mroe meaningless number.

When can we get an "average score" statistic? It can help put things into perspective.

if that was to ever happen, which it wouldn't (so a very poor example) then I would happily accept there is no place for RR. However, even if this did happen, based on his present performance, within 966 games he would be back where he is. Meanwhile his RR would then be somewhere near to .01

suck my balls.