Conquer Club

.UPDATED.

The Top LOSERS in CC... as of March 29, 2009

We now have 36 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...
But this list is getting a little long... so I'm gonna drop the 33%'ers...
So what we have here are the 28 players from Page 1 with 32% or LOWER win ratio...

These players can't even win ONE out of THREE games...

Now THAT is a LOT of LOSING...

It's bad enough just to be ON this Loser List,
But it is RL_Orange who is now the KING of the LOSERS...
Poorly done, RL...

18 RL_Orange 3640 4100 1133 (28%)
20 ballenus 3618 986 288 (29%)
27 joecoolfrog 3473 509 134 (26%)
32 Beadle 3401 352 113 (32%)
36 maniacmath17 3346 1341 434 (32%)
39 el counto 3254 747 241 (32%)
40 jbeaver 3251 831 172 (21%)
47 waynemgough 3193 1406 435 (31%)
56 PepperJack 3132 1492 384 (26%)
62 Stbtgal 3091 363 109 (30%)
69 JBoy 3049 1014 261 (26%)
74 steve066 3019 1546 376 (24%)
75 Robinette 3019 498 150 (30%)
80 hiddeous man 3004 950 301 (32%)
129 PapaGrooveUK 2771 1447 468 (32%)
138 K2_recon 2752 437 126 (29%)
140 austex 2748 848 258 (30%)
142 dandrobie 2742 2241 619 (28%)
145 Silvex 2735 588 173 (29%)
165 OTE 2682 421 131 (31%)
179 ianerb 2648 712 197 (28%)
184 Haggis_McMutton 2633 1008 277 (27%)
202 Phr34ky 2600 808 203 (25%)
204 chipv 2598 190 58 (31%)
223 Tennisie 2557 279 65 (23%)
235 mcnorm 2544 125 36 (29%)
237 Asclepio 2542 420 117 (28%)
250 intenespi 2527 291 94 (32%)

Ya bunch a LOSERS...

hehe i take full credit for this thread!

Looks at my rank and at yours...I do believe that says it all mate. Play with better competition

BeakerWMA wrote:Looks at my rank and at yours...I do believe that says it all mate. Play with better competition

Robin is a lady .. ney a princess risk player .. you can't call her 'mate'!

[quote="Robinette"] The Top LOSERS in CC... as of April 10, 2008

Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...
These players can't even win ONE out of THREE games...
Now THAT is a LOT of LOSING...

so if they play 10 games their biggest win streak at most is only 3 games....rofl ! what losers !

jiminski wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:Looks at my rank and at yours...I do believe that says it all mate. Play with better competition

Robin is a lady .. ney a princess risk player .. you can't call her 'mate'!

You forget that those are actually excellent (Or at least pretty good) win rates if you play quadruples, four-player singles, five-player singles, six-player singles, seven-player singles, and eight-player singles.

Robinette wrote: The Top LOSERS in CC... as of April 10, 2008

Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...
These players can't even win ONE out of THREE games...
Now THAT is a LOT of LOSING...

Considering that games have up to eight players, I'd say that's decent, unless they happen to only play 1v1. In order to get that high rank with a 1in3 win rate, they'd have to have played good opponents, and many of them at once.

these players probably play a lot of <3 person games. for instance, with 5 player games, and "average" player wins 20% of the time, so a player who wins a third of these if probably rather good. take it to 6 players and you're "expected to win... eh 17 percent? somewhere around there the math gets a little tricky to do in your head. 7 would be about 15%, and 8 might be 12 or 13%. if you win 33% of 8 player games, that means you're winning double what you're "supposed to", and that's really not bad at all



in retrospect, i now notice you were being sarcastic. please ignore the seriousness of the above post

bbqpenguin wrote:in retrospect, i now notice you were being sarcastic. please ignore the seriousness of the above post

heehee

sooner or later well find the conquerer of top losers 100 games 0 wins i have faith

scotland plays almost exclusive 8 msn esc..and his score has been higher...its just the game type.

Satire and Irony are a great mystery to many

JACKAZZTJM wrote:sooner or later well find the conquerer of top losers 100 games 0 wins i have faith

jasperjack

My 30% win rate is pretty good considering I play 8 player

Sigh-- can't believe I dropped so low that I'm not The Top Loser....

Scott-Land wrote:Sigh-- can't believe I dropped so low that I'm not The Top Loser....

You're back on top of the Loser Pile... Zsar of defeat... The King of losers...

And myseld, i've moved up a spot to 21st... I'm now the Secretary of Defeat...

Okay, who really cares about who is ranked 'low'. As discussed ad nauseum, rank doesn't necessarily make you a 'good' player. Lots of guys just play for the fun of it and lose a lotta points experimenting with new maps and different settings.
There can not mathematicaly ever be just 'high ranking' players in this system. Metaphically speaking it is exactly the same as 'The poor will always be with us'. There can be no advantaged without that adavatage coming from somewhere.
'Losers' in my book are the guys that play with no class regardless of how many points they have.

And if any of these players play terminator and take out all players but the last they win but it shows as a loss.

Robinette wrote:Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...

Win ratio is very misleading. It really should be a points per game value, like:

([score] -1000) / [games completed]

I've always wondered why ppg wasn't listed on the Scores page. After playing a 100 or so games it really is the definitive apples-to-apples comparison between two players.

Scott-Land wrote:Sigh-- can't believe I dropped so low that I'm not The Top Loser....

Very droll

Robinette wrote: heehee

aaahh isnt she the sweeeeeeeetest thing u've ever seen

cleveridea wrote:

Robinette wrote:Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...

Win ratio is very misleading. It really should be a points per game value, like:

([score] -1000) / [games completed]

I've always wondered why ppg wasn't listed on the Scores page. After playing a 100 or so games it really is the definitive apples-to-apples comparison between two players.

If you really want to understand why points per game doesn't work the way you think it does, then review this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6389&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

I will soon join yours ranks.. also you forgot a friend of mine, Insanity tm (30 win percentage)

I posted in the other thread that an increase in win rate in 1v1 is more difficult to achieve than an increase in win rate in multiplayer. After reading this thread, I thought I should explain in more detail....

So let's do a little back of napkin math... take the most skill intensive map/cards/fort settings (yeah, that's a debate from another thread, but just assume there is one for now, whatever it is). Lets say with those settings, the game's outcome is attributable 50% to player skill, 30% dice, 10% card draws, and 10% to drop/first move/etc.) You can disagree with these numbers... I'm just running an example to show where 8 player game average is.

Now let's take a hypothetical 60th percentile player.

In 1v1 games, there is a 60% chance they are better than their random opponent, and that accounts for 50% of outcomes, with the other 50% being determined by the "chance" factors of the game. This 60-th percentile player would win 6 out of 10 of those 50% of all games determined by skill, and also win 1/N (here 1/2) of of the remaining "chance" determinative" games by luck. So given these assumptions, our 60th percentile player should have a long run average win rate of a wopping (30% + 1/2 * 50%) = 55%. So even though this is a 60 percentile player, they'd have a 55% win rate. Obviously the gap increases as you tilt the assumptions on game outcome determination more in favor of chance over skill. So for example, the player who does only big maps, no cards, adjacent fort (to minimize the early benefit of a good drop) is going to have a win rate that is closer to their actual skill percentile than someone who plays more chance heavy settings).

Now take the hypothetical 60th percentile player in an 8 player match up. We'll use the same "50% skill determinative" assumption about 8-player games... you can argue about whether more or less skill determines the outcome in multiplayer, but the only point is that it's something less than 100%. The idealized win condition is that our hypothetical player has more skill than all 7 opponents. So if the draw of players were completely random, this would only happen 1/8, and so 1 out of 8 of the 50% skill determinitive games goes to this person by skill. That is basically going to be less than 2%. But the other 50% of non-skill determinative games get split equally, meaning that the based line is taking 1 of 8 from the 50% "chance" pool, or 12.5%, plus the percent or two of the time they actually win because they are the "best skill player". That means a win rate vastly lower than the actual players skill level (for our poor Mr. 60th percentile, using the assumptions above, it's 14.5% vs 60%!!).

Ahah, you say... we knew this intuitively. But let's go further now. Let's compare the 60th percentile guy with a 95 percentile "pro". Here's what you get:

In 1v1, Mr 95 will have an observed ideal win rate = 47.5% skill + 25% chance = around 72.5%. That's pretty darn close to the 75% limit. But look at how close the results are... Mr. 95 is winning only 18 games more in 100 than a person whose skill level is about 30% worse.

For the 95 percentile player, its: 66% of the "skill determinative" games + 1/8 of the non-skill, so the long run average win rate should be around 33% + 12.5% = 55.5%. So Mr. 95 has a win rate that is almost 4 times higher than Mr. 60s.

You could graph out these functions, and what you'd find basically is that 1v1 approaches the asymtotic limit much faster than multi-player. So for 1v1 players, the actual skill difference for people who may only have observed win rates that are a couple of percentage points apart could be quite sizable. One the other hand, a small difference in skills has a VERY SIGNIFICANT impact on win rate for 8-player games.

So what does this tell you? Nothing, of course, because we've just made up the numbers as to how much of the game is skill and how much is chance. In practice, we don't know those numbers, and even so, they vary across the sample because different people play different game attributes which - whether higher or lower - unequovacally do cause the outcome attribution percent of skill-chance.

And lastly there is another wrinkle to the analysis. That is opponent selection. Due to the scoring system, players will tend to select out their opponents from a pool of the highest score players that they think they can beat. That means that in fact, a 60th percentile player is not drawing on the whole population in the "skill" matches... for example they might be limiting themselves to just the upper half of the population. So to go back to Mr. 60, among his population, he is really going to produce a "skill" component that would reflect being in the 30th percentile of a population. Setting aside private games... in the public game context, a player is much more able to limit the popution in this way in 1v1 by joining only games with the players who have a reasonable score, meaning those who tend to be confined to the higher percentiles. In an 8 player context... only the last person to join the game truly has this ability to "select out the cooks", so that is another part of the model to consider when trying to generalize about 8-player game "ideal" statistics and 1v1 ideal statistics.

Makes perfect sense, right?

Robinette wrote:

cleveridea wrote:

Robinette wrote:Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...

Win ratio is very misleading. It really should be a points per game value, like:

([score] -1000) / [games completed]

I've always wondered why ppg wasn't listed on the Scores page. After playing a 100 or so games it really is the definitive apples-to-apples comparison between two players.

If you really want to understand why points per game doesn't work the way you think it does, then review this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6389&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Well, between two players with the same point total, the ppg is a meaningful measuring stick - but between players of different point totals, it isn't all that meaningful. I thought that was obvious.