No more trolling in Any forum

[ParadiceCity9]

And btw KLOBBER, you have a 75% kill ratio, not 173...

[KLOBBER]

Even though the category is number of defeats...

If it is to remain simple number of defeats, then why not change it to simply how many games one has completed? It would be just as relevant to the skill of the player in question.

The best Risk player in the world could join tomorrow and defeat 7 guys in an 8-player game, and compared to your stats, he would be a far lesser player.

However, if you take into account actual games completed, then the numbers become far more relevant to actual playing skill.

Warm thanks, gentle friend, for your input, and I hope you have a wonderful day!

[KLOBBER]

I have defeated 2104 unique opponents, and I have finished a total of 1214 games.

2104 is greater than 1214.

Therefore, my percentage is also GREATER than 100%.

It is 173%, to be specific, whereas PC's is 52%.

Thank you for your opinion, gentle friend, and please don't be dismayed at being incorrect. It's okay to make mistakes now and then!

Have a wonderful day!

[ParadiceCity9]

You've defeated 2104 unique opponents, but how many of those games did you win? And once again...this thread is not about percentages, it's about total defeats. Remember, it's okay to make mistakes...

[KLOBBER]

You can make a different stat thread, but this one is about number of defeated opponents. Keep with the stat here.

Dear friend, I am discussing the very same stat that this thread is about.

My point is that the stat that this thread touts is not relevant to actual skill in the game, as it does not take into account the respective numbers of games played by each applicant.

For example,
you have played more than six times the number of games that I have played, and so for us to be considered evenly ranked in any fair system, the numbers would have to be adjusted to reflect this fact.

Simply having played more games than me grants you more unique defeats, not any provable skill in the game.

By the way, I plan to start another thread that reflects a more fair and complete picture of these stats, but this thread is still in its fledgling stage, and there is not enough raw data available yet to create a significant thread of my own, based on this one.

Enjoy your day, kind friend; it is a precious gift!

[ParadiceCity9]

You can make a different stat thread, but this one is about number of defeated opponents. Keep with the stat here.

Dear friend, I am discussing the very same stat that this thread is about.

My point is that the stat that this thread touts is not relevant to actual skill in the game, as it does not take into account the respective numbers of games played by each applicant.

For example,
you have played more than six times the number of games that I have played, and so for us to be considered evenly ranked in any fair system, the numbers would have to be adjusted to reflect this fact.

Simply having played more games than me grants you more unique defeats, not any provable skill in the game.

By the way, I plan to start another thread that reflects a more fair and complete picture of these stats, but this thread is still in its fledgling stage, and there is not enough raw data available yet to create a significant thread of my own, based on this one.

Enjoy your day, kind friend; it is a precious gift!

Uh, not it's not the same stat since yours is a percentage, everyone else's is just a number.

I think this is the fourth time I've said this, but, this stat isn't about percentages. If you're going to make a different thread, then why are you arguing about it in this thread?

[KLOBBER]

You've defeated 2104 unique opponents, but how many of those games did you win? And once again...this thread is not about percentages, it's about total defeats. Remember, it's okay to make mistakes...

Again, dear friend, total number of unique defeats is no more relevant to actual game skill than simple number of games completed or number of days as a member.

I have not made any mistakes; I am discussing the subject of total unique defeats.

Me: 173%

You: 52%

Please don't be dismayed at being shown up as second-place. It's not really so much the winning, as it is playing the game fairly and by the rules, that produces a good feeling in the heart.

Have a wonderful day, friend!

[ParadiceCity9]

Klobber= 2104 (7)

you should really check these things out before you add to the list and not just assume the information the player is posting is accurate.

Two people had already said this.. Try reading the thread next time

[ParadiceCity9]

You've defeated 2104 unique opponents, but how many of those games did you win? And once again...this thread is not about percentages, it's about total defeats. Remember, it's okay to make mistakes...

Again, dear friend, total number of unique defeats is no more relevant to actual game skill than simple number of games completed or number of days as a member.

I have not made any mistakes; I am discussing the subject of total unique defeats.

Me: 173%

You: 52%

Please don't be dismayed at being shown up as second-place. It's not really so much the winning, as it is playing the game fairly and by the rules, that produces a good feeling in the heart.

Have a wonderful day, friend!

And again, you're counted every game. You did not defeat the people whom you lost to.

[KLOBBER]

You can make a different stat thread, but this one is about number of defeated opponents. Keep with the stat here.

Dear friend, I am discussing the very same stat that this thread is about.

My point is that the stat that this thread touts is not relevant to actual skill in the game, as it does not take into account the respective numbers of games played by each applicant.

For example,
you have played more than six times the number of games that I have played, and so for us to be considered evenly ranked in any fair system, the numbers would have to be adjusted to reflect this fact.

Simply having played more games than me grants you more unique defeats, not any provable skill in the game.

By the way, I plan to start another thread that reflects a more fair and complete picture of these stats, but this thread is still in its fledgling stage, and there is not enough raw data available yet to create a significant thread of my own, based on this one.

Enjoy your day, kind friend; it is a precious gift!

Uh, not it's not the same stat since yours is a percentage, everyone else's is just a number.

I think this is the fourth time I've said this, but, this stat isn't about percentages. If you're going to make a different thread, then why are you arguing about it in this thread?

Please don't allow your defeat to upset you. I am discussing the relevancy of this stat compared to a much more relevant stat, when it comes to the question of actual game skill.

The numbers you are touting are no more relevant to actual game skill than screen names or simple number of games finished. Unless you take both number of games completed AND number of unique defeats, you will be discussing numbers that are completely irrelevant to actual game skill.

I am beginning to suspect that you are purposely disregarding actual game skill, and although that is understandable, it is not very honorable.

Thanks again for your input, gentle friend, and have a wonderful day!

[Kaplowitz]

Klobber if you are going to do your stats in another thread, dont do it by games, do it by number of oponents. Some people play 1v1, some play 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1.

[ParadiceCity9]

You can make a different stat thread, but this one is about number of defeated opponents. Keep with the stat here.

Dear friend, I am discussing the very same stat that this thread is about.

My point is that the stat that this thread touts is not relevant to actual skill in the game, as it does not take into account the respective numbers of games played by each applicant.

For example,
you have played more than six times the number of games that I have played, and so for us to be considered evenly ranked in any fair system, the numbers would have to be adjusted to reflect this fact.

Simply having played more games than me grants you more unique defeats, not any provable skill in the game.

By the way, I plan to start another thread that reflects a more fair and complete picture of these stats, but this thread is still in its fledgling stage, and there is not enough raw data available yet to create a significant thread of my own, based on this one.

Enjoy your day, kind friend; it is a precious gift!

Uh, not it's not the same stat since yours is a percentage, everyone else's is just a number.

I think this is the fourth time I've said this, but, this stat isn't about percentages. If you're going to make a different thread, then why are you arguing about it in this thread?

Please don't allow your defeat to upset you. I am discussing the relevancy of this stat compared to a much more relevant stat, when it comes to the question of actual game skill.

The numbers you are touting are no more relevant to actual game skill than screen names or simple number of games finished. Unless you take both number of games completed AND number of unique defeats, you will be discussing numbers that are completely irrelevant to actual game skill.

I am beginning to suspect that you are purposely disregarding actual game skill, and although that is understandable, it is not very honorable.

Thanks again for your input, gentle friend, and have a wonderful day!

I've already been 'defeated', JR has more than me. I'm not mad. I'm saying that your stat does not apply to this thread. I don't know why you are bringing up the skill factor, since, obviously, it takes skill to have any defeats. And you seem to be disregarding my repeated statement that this thread is not about percentages..it's about number of defeats...

[ParadiceCity9]

Also, KLOBBER, if you wanna talk percentages, it seems as though, after 6 times as many games, my win percentage is higher than yours. And, apparently, you seem to think that no matter what game you play, the percentages do the talking. So I guess that means I have more skill than you, that is, according to your standards.

[KLOBBER]

Also, KLOBBER, if you wanna talk percentages, it seems as though, after 6 times as many games, my win percentage is higher than yours. And, apparently, you seem to think that no matter what game you play, the percentages do the talking. So I guess that means I have more skill than you, that is, according to your standards.

Sorry again, gentle friend.

Yours is a mere 52%, while mine is 173%.

Last time I checked, 173 is higher than 52. However, don't be dismayed at your error; it doesn't make you a bad person. It just means that you're wrong.

Thanks for your opinion, dear friend, and have a wonderful day!

[Kaplowitz]

Klobber what was the average rank of all of those people you beat? What was the average experience of the players?

[KLOBBER]

You can make a different stat thread, but this one is about number of defeated opponents. Keep with the stat here.

Dear friend, I am discussing the very same stat that this thread is about.

My point is that the stat that this thread touts is not relevant to actual skill in the game, as it does not take into account the respective numbers of games played by each applicant.

For example,
you have played more than six times the number of games that I have played, and so for us to be considered evenly ranked in any fair system, the numbers would have to be adjusted to reflect this fact.

Simply having played more games than me grants you more unique defeats, not any provable skill in the game.

By the way, I plan to start another thread that reflects a more fair and complete picture of these stats, but this thread is still in its fledgling stage, and there is not enough raw data available yet to create a significant thread of my own, based on this one.

Enjoy your day, kind friend; it is a precious gift!

Uh, not it's not the same stat since yours is a percentage, everyone else's is just a number.

I think this is the fourth time I've said this, but, this stat isn't about percentages. If you're going to make a different thread, then why are you arguing about it in this thread?

Please don't allow your defeat to upset you. I am discussing the relevancy of this stat compared to a much more relevant stat, when it comes to the question of actual game skill.

The numbers you are touting are no more relevant to actual game skill than screen names or simple number of games finished. Unless you take both number of games completed AND number of unique defeats, you will be discussing numbers that are completely irrelevant to actual game skill.

I am beginning to suspect that you are purposely disregarding actual game skill, and although that is understandable, it is not very honorable.

Thanks again for your input, gentle friend, and have a wonderful day!

I've already been 'defeated', JR has more than me. I'm not mad. I'm saying that your stat does not apply to this thread. I don't know why you are bringing up the skill factor, since, obviously, it takes skill to have any defeats. And you seem to be disregarding my repeated statement that this thread is not about percentages..it's about number of defeats...

Again, genlte friend, I AM discussing unique defeats, just as you are.

I am discussing them in relation to actual game skill, however, whereas you are trying very hard to divorce the two subjects altogether.

My point is that simple numbers of unique defeats says little or nothing about actual game skill, whereas taking into account the number of games finished as well makes the numbers much more relevant to actual game skill.

I can understand your desire to avoid the question of actual game skill, but I do not think that your desire to do so is very honorable, nor is it very honest.

Have a wonderful day, friend!

[ParadiceCity9]

Also, KLOBBER, if you wanna talk percentages, it seems as though, after 6 times as many games, my win percentage is higher than yours. And, apparently, you seem to think that no matter what game you play, the percentages do the talking. So I guess that means I have more skill than you, that is, according to your standards.

Sorry again, gentle friend.

Yours is a mere 52%, while mine is 173%.

Last time I checked, 173 is higher than 52. However, don't be dismayed at your error; it doesn't make you a bad person. It just means that you're wrong.

Thanks for your opinion, dear friend, and have a wonderful day!

You have a 173 win percentage?? WOW!!!

[ParadiceCity9]

Again, genlte friend, I AM discussing unique defeats, just as you are.

I am discussing them in relation to actual game skill, however, whereas you are trying very hard to divorce the two subjects altogether.

My point is that simple numbers of unique defeats says little or nothing about actual game skill, whereas taking into account the number of games finished as well makes the numbers much more relevant to actual game skill.

I can understand your desire to avoid the question of actual game skill, but I do not think that your desire to do so is very honorable, nor is it very honest.

Have a wonderful day, friend!

First of all, stop calling me friend. I'm not your friend; I have no idea who you are, and for all I know, you could be trying to rape me.

Anyway back to the point. Kaplowitz brings up a great point, in that I would guesstimate that at least 65% of your defeats have been new recruits. Also, why don't you try playing on different maps? There's a reason you only have medals for standard and ratings achievements. And, for the 5th time, this thread isn't about percentages...You're still neglecting to acknowledge that.

[KLOBBER]

Amazed that a percentage greater than 100% exists, gentle friend? That's understandable. I was also surprised to learn this fact, back in the 3rd grade, but my teacher explained as follows:

100% means the same as 1. So, 200% means the same as 2.

Simple, huh?

By extension, please try to understand the mathematical fact that 173% means the same as 1.73.

Anyway, I have defeated 2104 unique opponents in 1214 games. The reason why my percentage can be greater than 100% is that I defeated more than one unique opponent per game finished, whereas PC defeated less than one unique opponent per game finished.

Recap:

Me -- 173%

PC -- 52%

I hope you have a wonderful day, friend!

[willis]

No.

No what?

No to any of my questions?

No to will you ever move out of you parents basement? Get laid? Not be such a pussy over A GAME?


Please enlighten us all about your "No."

[KLOBBER]

Again, genlte friend, I AM discussing unique defeats, just as you are.

I am discussing them in relation to actual game skill, however, whereas you are trying very hard to divorce the two subjects altogether.

My point is that simple numbers of unique defeats says little or nothing about actual game skill, whereas taking into account the number of games finished as well makes the numbers much more relevant to actual game skill.

I can understand your desire to avoid the question of actual game skill, but I do not think that your desire to do so is very honorable, nor is it very honest.

Have a wonderful day, friend!

First of all, stop calling me friend. I'm not your friend; I have no idea who you are, and for all I know, you could be trying to rape me.

Anyway back to the point. Kaplowitz brings up a great point, in that I would guesstimate that at least 65% of your defeats have been new recruits. Also, why don't you try playing on different maps? There's a reason you only have medals for standard and ratings achievements. And, for the 5th time, this thread isn't about percentages...You're still neglecting to acknowledge that.

Unfortunately, gentle friend, "guesstimates" are not scientific, and nor is disregarding important data in determining relevant statistics.

Thanks anyway for your opinion, and please don't be upset at being proven wrong again. You are, after all, only human.

Have a wonderful day, friend!

[lancehoch]

This is off topic, not flame wars, be careful willis.

[Snorri1234]

Well i see that nobody have these list(even mighty record colector Blitz )
Here we go,every one who think that have enough defeated unique oponent can post hes number.
Most defeated unique oponent top scorers
1.Paradice City 9 -3907
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

8937 (80)

but whos counting ?

Well you are probably.

[ParadiceCity9]

Amazed that a percentage greater than 100% exists, gentle friend? That's understandable. I was also surprised to learn this fact, back in the 3rd grade, but my teacher explained as follows:

100% means the same as 1. So, 200% means the same as 2.

Simple, huh?

By extension, please try to understand the mathematical fact that 173% means the same as 1.73.

Anyway, I have defeated 2104 unique opponents in 1214 games. The reason why my percentage can be greater than 100% is that I defeated more than one unique opponent per game finished, whereas PC defeated less than one unique opponent per game finished.

Recap:

Me -- 173%

PC -- 52%

I hope you have a wonderful day, friend!

Lmao. When I said my percentage is higher than yours, I meant my win percentage, which I believe I even said. All this means is that you have 1.73 defeats per game, not a 173% kill ratio. Your kill ratio is 75%, according to map rank. And looking at the first page of your games, I'd say it's at least 80% of your opponents are new recruits. Maybe chipv can add something to Map Rank that can tell us how many of what ranks we've competed against. And again, this thread isn't about percentages. And again, you are neglected to acknowledge that. And now, you changed what you have been saying. Now you say that you are getting 1.73 defeats per game, which is correct. But before you were saying that your 'percentage' is 173%, which, since unspecified, makes absolutely no sense at all.

[willis]

This is off topic, not flame wars, be careful willis.

that is flaming???

Since this was moved I see no specific topic

and i was merely asking for him to elaborate his "No."