Moderator: Community Team
Funkyterrance wrote: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?
See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
benga wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
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?
Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
benga wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
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?
Mr Changsha wrote: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.
Mr Changsha wrote: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.
Funkyterrance wrote:Mr Changsha wrote: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.
benga wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
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?
benga wrote:benga wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
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?
At this day average rank of clansmen
Myth-2023
Otpisani vs Mythology [60+3 games] 34-29 - Final 12/17 OTP 2100
[CL4] Ph 4 - Div 2 - MYTH-OSA 23-18 - MVP: Peanutsdad OSA 2238
[CC3] EMPIRE vs. Mythology (37-24 of 61) - Final 9/18 EMP 2603
[CC3] Myth vs BPB MYT-BPB 21-20 - Final 8/17 BPB 1967
THE PACK vs. MYTHOLOGY {Random}39-22 PACK wins PACK 2367
Ok wasted some of my time to give you the facts.
As I stated before and am repeating now, your conclusion is false, you didn't even bother to check anything,
you just came in screaming me and my clan kick ass or so it seemed to me.
@qwert
Myths game load is lower then KORTs and they are picky who they play and when.
Anyway have a nice day
Funkyterrance wrote:benga wrote:benga wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
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?
At this day average rank of clansmen
Myth-2023
Otpisani vs Mythology [60+3 games] 34-29 - Final 12/17 OTP 2100
[CL4] Ph 4 - Div 2 - MYTH-OSA 23-18 - MVP: Peanutsdad OSA 2238
[CC3] EMPIRE vs. Mythology (37-24 of 61) - Final 9/18 EMP 2603
[CC3] Myth vs BPB MYT-BPB 21-20 - Final 8/17 BPB 1967
THE PACK vs. MYTHOLOGY {Random}39-22 PACK wins PACK 2367
Ok wasted some of my time to give you the facts.
As I stated before and am repeating now, your conclusion is false, you didn't even bother to check anything,
you just came in screaming me and my clan kick ass or so it seemed to me.
@qwert
Myths game load is lower then KORTs and they are picky who they play and when.
Anyway have a nice day
I came in screaming rank is bullshit. I mentioned my clan because that's the only place that high ranks are willing to risk their precious points and therefore the highest incidence of me and my teammates playing higher ranked players in normal, non-doctored settings.
Also, while you're listing the average rank of clans you might want to factor in how many games each ranked player plays. If you've got one clan with 2.1k average score playing all majors and Liuetenants and the other 2.1k average clan playing all of their Colonels and Brigs it's not exactly a reflection of their average rank is it? On other words, until you show the average rank of the actual games played, your data is inconclusive.
betiko wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:benga wrote:benga wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:See: Title of this thread.benga wrote:
yes please what!?
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?
At this day average rank of clansmen
Myth-2023
Otpisani vs Mythology [60+3 games] 34-29 - Final 12/17 OTP 2100
[CL4] Ph 4 - Div 2 - MYTH-OSA 23-18 - MVP: Peanutsdad OSA 2238
[CC3] EMPIRE vs. Mythology (37-24 of 61) - Final 9/18 EMP 2603
[CC3] Myth vs BPB MYT-BPB 21-20 - Final 8/17 BPB 1967
THE PACK vs. MYTHOLOGY {Random}39-22 PACK wins PACK 2367
Ok wasted some of my time to give you the facts.
As I stated before and am repeating now, your conclusion is false, you didn't even bother to check anything,
you just came in screaming me and my clan kick ass or so it seemed to me.
@qwert
Myths game load is lower then KORTs and they are picky who they play and when.
Anyway have a nice day
I came in screaming rank is bullshit. I mentioned my clan because that's the only place that high ranks are willing to risk their precious points and therefore the highest incidence of me and my teammates playing higher ranked players in normal, non-doctored settings.
Also, while you're listing the average rank of clans you might want to factor in how many games each ranked player plays. If you've got one clan with 2.1k average score playing all majors and Liuetenants and the other 2.1k average clan playing all of their Colonels and Brigs it's not exactly a reflection of their average rank is it? On other words, until you show the average rank of the actual games played, your data is inconclusive.
why don't you go calculate it yourself, then you'll tell us? you're the one willing to prove a point, and you failed to prove it on a clan level.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users