CC'S ALL TIME TOP 100 SCORES

[Warsteiner]

I predicted warsteiners succes

hehe I hope I can forfill them

[krusher]

nah warsteiner is gona slip up soon and get his score reset for cheating like me

[Scott-Land]

3807--

[Warsteiner]

4159 was my highest, lost one now

[rebelman]

4159 was my highest, lost one now

last time i looked you were a general at 4204

[Warsteiner]

3 Warsteiner 4204 2065 1142 (55%) General

[Karlo Veliki]

20 Karlo Veliki 3011 327 174 (53%) Colonel Colonel 26-0 Croatia Croatia

[Warsteiner]

2 Warsteiner 4246 2070 1147 (55%) General

[Warsteiner]

4329

[rebelman]

sirius got up to 3026

[negoeien]

i'm a colonel too, now please add me to the hall of fame
3019 at this moment.

[Zemljanin]

1. Poo-Maker 4435*
2. Blitzaholic 4386 **
3. SkyT 4364 ***
4. Warsteiner 4329*

...

* over 70% win rate
* held #1 rank
* busted by the admins for account babysitting abuse/secret alliance
bold-currently over 3,000 points

Is it wishful thinking or what? SkyT and Warsteiner are still on the scoreboard. (and their scores don't seem reset at all)

[rebelman]

Is it wishful thinking or what? SkyT and Warsteiner are still on the scoreboard. (and their scores don't seem reset at all)

they didnt get resets they got blocks / warnings

[Zemljanin]

Is it wishful thinking or what? SkyT and Warsteiner are still on the scoreboard. (and their scores don't seem reset at all)

they didnt get resets they got blocks / warnings

Oh, I see. Thank you.

[jiminski]

I think there should be an* for under 50% win rate too

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I think there should be an* for under 50% win rate too

why reward those with low wining percentages ?

[jiminski]

I think there should be an* for under 50% win rate too

why reward those with low wining percentages ?

Only because it gives indication of those who play almost exclusively singles games (you know that Rocket ) ...

the 70%+ asterisk, exclusively rewards predominantly team players.
So at present you imply, by omission, a superiority of the team player in comparison to the singles player.


With Pooh, for example, his percentage is nearly 50%!
This is extraordinary as he plays very few team games.
50% is an absolutely incredible success rate when playing up to 8 other players who are vying to take your points.

Any player on your list with a less than 50 % win rate must, by definition, be an incredible singles player. Another '*'just balances the kudos a little.*
As your asterisks are specifically intended to either strip or allot prestige, i think it should be balanced. This lends their inclusion greater gravitas in their role as an easily available mechanism of analysis.


*Just a thought but perhaps you could differentiate further by saying what percentage of games are singles compared to team?

Anyway, no biggy, it's your thread mate.

[Karlo Veliki]

17 Karlo Veliki 3045 336 180 (54%) Colonel Colonel 26-0 Croatia

[Karlo Veliki]

PLEASE UPDATE

Karlo Veliki 3061

[kingprawn]

A few games 1 v 1 against pmphawk should get my win rate up a bit. Wouldn't you agree mr rocket. For me I think the higher the score with the lowest win rate = the better player.

[nagerous]

I think there should be an* for under 50% win rate too

why reward those with low wining percentages ?

Only because it gives indication of those who play almost exclusively singles games (you know that Rocket ) ...

the 70%+ asterisk, exclusively rewards predominantly team players.
So at present you imply, by omission, a superiority of the team player in comparison to the singles player.


With Pooh, for example, his percentage is nearly 50%!
This is extraordinary as he plays very few team games.
50% is an absolutely incredible success rate when playing up to 8 other players who are vying to take your points.

Any player on your list with a less than 50 % win rate must, by definition, be an incredible singles player. Another '*'just balances the kudos a little.*
As your asterisks are specifically intended to either strip or allot prestige, i think it should be balanced. This lends their inclusion greater gravitas in their role as an easily available mechanism of analysis.


*Just a thought but perhaps you could differentiate further by saying what percentage of games are singles compared to team?

Anyway, no biggy, it's your thread mate.

In fact the more mid-range the win percentage rankers. The better the player in my opinion. This is because it shows versatility and highlights that people can play and win on lots of different settings beit quads, 1vs1s and 8 player standards. Why reward those like wocket who only play the same settings always against the lowest rankers? Seems unjustifiable to me...

[poo-maker]

i got to 4472 yesterday

[Blitzaholic]

i got to 4472 yesterday

nice

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

updated

capt.lebo- I saw your score over 3100 and now you dropped. contact me and let me know the exact.

[poo-maker]

Just a thought JR. What do you think about having all of the players currently over 3500 in bold and underlined, and all of the players currently over 4200 in bold, underlined and italic'ed?