Evidence that Rank is BULLSHIT

[Funkyterrance]

My clan has been pretty active lately and we have been warring more or less nonstop. The average rank of our clan is probably major or less and we have been playing clans with a much higher percentage of high ranks than us and coming out of these wars either winning or losing pretty damn closely and quite frankly I'm never "wowed" by the play of our opponents, no matter how stacked their members are. Hmm, what might this suggest?

[benga]

My clan has been pretty active lately and we have been warring more or less nonstop. The average rank of our clan is probably major or less and we have been playing clans with a much higher percentage of high ranks than us and coming out of these wars either winning or losing pretty damn closely and quite frankly I'm never "wowed" by the play of our opponents, no matter how stacked their members are. Hmm, what might this suggest?

yes please what!?

[Funkyterrance]

yes please what!?

See: Title of this thread.

[benga]

yes please what!?

See: Title of this thread.

Otpisani vs Mythology [60+3 games] 34-29 - Final 12/17
[CL4] Ph 4 - Div 2 - MYTH-OSA 23-18 - MVP: Peanutsdad
[CC3] EMPIRE vs. Mythology (37-24 of 61) - Final 9/18
[CC3] Myth vs BPB MYT-BPB 21-20 - Final 8/17
THE PACK vs. MYTHOLOGY {Random}39-22 PACK wins

Now lets see, those are 5 wars within last 2 years, so no, that's not pretty active.

From those last five you have won 2 wars against clans that were at that time lower ranked then you and lost heavily vs top clans in top 10.

Not sure how many high rankers you had at the time or the opposite clans had,
but you should check the facts before you go out and talk nonsense.

Understood?

[skillfull]

After looking at the facts, it seems that Benga has right !

[qwert]

yes please what!?

See: Title of this thread.

Otpisani vs Mythology [60+3 games] 34-29 - Final 12/17
[CL4] Ph 4 - Div 2 - MYTH-OSA 23-18 - MVP: Peanutsdad
[CC3] EMPIRE vs. Mythology (37-24 of 61) - Final 9/18
[CC3] Myth vs BPB MYT-BPB 21-20 - Final 8/17
THE PACK vs. MYTHOLOGY {Random}39-22 PACK wins

Now lets see, those are 5 wars within last 2 years, so no, that's not pretty active.

From those last five you have won 2 wars against clans that were at that time lower ranked then you and lost heavily vs top clans in top 10.

Not sure how many high rankers you had at the time or the opposite clans had,
but you should check the facts before you go out and talk nonsense.

Understood?

well i dont know why you count only clan chalenges- entire CL4 consist of total 227 games, so these its like we play 5 regular clan wars. Why people every time underestimate CL value and dont count like active?

[jsnyder748]

my rank is certainly bs

i admit it!

[AAFitz]

yes please what!?

See: Title of this thread.

See: Science.

Your hypothesis, experiments and conclusions are lacking impartiality, enough of a sample size, a direct causal relationship, and on a very basic level.

What this more seems to be, is an effort to shout out to your clan who seems to be doing well, but disguised as some actual scientific breakthrough, which just makes it pathetic from a scientfic standpoint.

Being arrogant about it as above to benga, who asks a pertinent question, makes it only more so.

Most importantly, one would need to define "bullshit" before even making a thread like this, that was useful at all.

[DoomYoshi]

I'd say this thread is bullhonky.

[Funkyterrance]

yes please what!?

See: Title of this thread.

Otpisani vs Mythology [60+3 games] 34-29 - Final 12/17
[CL4] Ph 4 - Div 2 - MYTH-OSA 23-18 - MVP: Peanutsdad
[CC3] EMPIRE vs. Mythology (37-24 of 61) - Final 9/18
[CC3] Myth vs BPB MYT-BPB 21-20 - Final 8/17
THE PACK vs. MYTHOLOGY {Random}39-22 PACK wins

Now lets see, those are 5 wars within last 2 years, so no, that's not pretty active.

From those last five you have won 2 wars against clans that were at that time lower ranked then you and lost heavily vs top clans in top 10.

Not sure how many high rankers you had at the time or the opposite clans had,
but you should check the facts before you go out and talk nonsense.

Understood?

I didn't say top ranking clans, I said clans that have higher average rank than our clan. As qwert mentioned, CL games should be considered as well. It's not a real scientific observation admittedly but I can't help but notice the generally average playing ability of our opponents as of late. Two years ago we were an entirely different clan. Our average rank was probably similar though.
So to reiterate: Not top ranking or low ranking clans, average rank of clans.
Understood?

[AslanTheKing]

rank is nice, but what i do check is the amount of games played,
that shows me how serious i can take him

[Mr Changsha]

Rank is a complicated thing.

A player might have a high rank and have had that high rank for a while, but actually be merely treading water in recent times. One could be playing at say 2700 and winning enough to maintain, but not playing as well as they did when they actually achieved the score.

Alternatively, a player might have gained a high score through playing one setting (say dubs, foggy escalating) but then be playing on a very different setting indeed. Such a player's rank would in no way be a good indicator of their ability on a different setting.

In general terms a high rank is achieved by playing exclusively (or near enough) on settings at which the player excels or by avoiding settings on which even if the player is very good, the point differentials will hurt too much to maintain the score.

I would refer you back to my concepts of TRUE and GRASPING ranks. If I can continue to play my standard and team games and maintain over 2500 then I am a TRUE colonel...if I am forced to merely play team games (and possibly narrow my map selections down even further) to maintain at a certain point then I have reduced myself to a GRASPING existance. Why? Because my natural play is, and always has been, a mixture of standard and team games. Once I have to eliminate what I naturally play then I am grasping...

So some player's ranks are more BULLSHIT than others. A major playing absolutely everything and maintaining over 2300 is a player to be respected. A player at 2300 who plays one map and one setting could well be said to have a BULLSHIT rank and this would be clear if they were ever forced to play outside of their incredibly narrow comfort zone.

[niMic]

Rank is obviously not bullshit. The best players will generally have very high ranks, with a few exceptions. But nor is it everything. It's dependent on game settings. I'm much better at quads and trips on large maps than I am on assassin Doodle Earth.

[betiko]

Rank is a complicated thing.

A player might have a high rank and have had that high rank for a while, but actually be merely treading water in recent times. One could be playing at say 2700 and winning enough to maintain, but not playing as well as they did when they actually achieved the score.

Alternatively, a player might have gained a high score through playing one setting (say dubs, foggy escalating) but then be playing on a very different setting indeed. Such a player's rank would in no way be a good indicator of their ability on a different setting.

In general terms a high rank is achieved by playing exclusively (or near enough) on settings at which the player excels or by avoiding settings on which even if the player is very good, the point differentials will hurt too much to maintain the score.

I would refer you back to my concepts of TRUE and GRASPING ranks. If I can continue to play my standard and team games and maintain over 2500 then I am a TRUE colonel...if I am forced to merely play team games (and possibly narrow my map selections down even further) to maintain at a certain point then I have reduced myself to a GRASPING existance. Why? Because my natural play is, and always has been, a mixture of standard and team games. Once I have to eliminate what I naturally play then I am grasping...

So some player's ranks are more BULLSHIT than others. A major playing absolutely everything and maintaining over 2300 is a player to be respected. A player at 2300 who plays one map and one setting could well be said to have a BULLSHIT rank and this would be clear if they were ever forced to play outside of their incredibly narrow comfort zone.

absolutely agree with all this.
also, having a high rank doesn't mean you're necesairly good in team games, and clan wars are exclusively...team games!
I know that in my clan people go up and down like yoyos all the time. I personally gained +1000pts in a couple of weeks, other times i lose those 1000pts in a couple of weeks because I play any stupid speed assassin game or anything. so what is my "normal" rank or the one of my clanmates? I don't know. When we get an unlucky streak or a lucky streak, or when we go for stupid costy games does that really change our gameskill? I think it does a little because when your rank sucks you stop caring and when you go up you might be more carefull. but when it comes to clan wars, I think that everyone plays at their best. So yes, ranks are not completely relevant, but I wouldn't say they're bullshit.

[Funkyterrance]

Rank is a complicated thing.

A player might have a high rank and have had that high rank for a while, but actually be merely treading water in recent times. One could be playing at say 2700 and winning enough to maintain, but not playing as well as they did when they actually achieved the score.

Alternatively, a player might have gained a high score through playing one setting (say dubs, foggy escalating) but then be playing on a very different setting indeed. Such a player's rank would in no way be a good indicator of their ability on a different setting.

In general terms a high rank is achieved by playing exclusively (or near enough) on settings at which the player excels or by avoiding settings on which even if the player is very good, the point differentials will hurt too much to maintain the score.

I would refer you back to my concepts of TRUE and GRASPING ranks. If I can continue to play my standard and team games and maintain over 2500 then I am a TRUE colonel...if I am forced to merely play team games (and possibly narrow my map selections down even further) to maintain at a certain point then I have reduced myself to a GRASPING existance. Why? Because my natural play is, and always has been, a mixture of standard and team games. Once I have to eliminate what I naturally play then I am grasping...

So some player's ranks are more BULLSHIT than others. A major playing absolutely everything and maintaining over 2300 is a player to be respected. A player at 2300 who plays one map and one setting could well be said to have a BULLSHIT rank and this would be clear if they were ever forced to play outside of their incredibly narrow comfort zone.

Speaking of which...

But seriously, I see what you are saying and agree wholeheartedly but it can' be ignored that, and you seem to only enforce this fact, you can't tell any of this information by rank alone. So that you wrote basically is saying that rank is bullshit here, but not there, so essentially doesn't that cancel them both out, leaving us with a "?" ? It seems there are other ways to tell the skill level of a player, which you mentioned and these are not bullshit. If rank can be bullshit some of the time then in general it's bullshit all of the time.
I'm happy to admit that it requires new skill sets to get used to a new map or setting but I'm not sure I agree that proficiency in all maps indicates a higher level of skill in general.
I'm still having a hard time telling how ranking above major is any indication of a skill level beyond a solid major. The only difference, from what I can tell, is the specialization you've mentioned. Perhaps it's just a limitation/skill ceiling that comes with a game that relies so heavily on dice.