Jeff Hardy wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal
How?
Moderator: Community Team
Jeff Hardy wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal
Jeff Hardy wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal
Seulessliathan wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal
indeed, but after you are a Field Marshal with a relative rank factor of 2.0 (i doubt it will be 2.0, but let´s say it would be) ..... and you will be down to 1.0 or less quickly. No way to keep rank and rr of 2.0. So the system will still work. And, while you increase your rank, rr is already slowing down, and you won´t have 2.0 when you get to 3k or 4k points.
I like the suggestion, of course there might be ways to do things like what Jeff is talking about, but i guess it would work better than the current system.
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
Joodoo wrote:I like this idea. Make a poll Fruitcake!
Fruitcake wrote:Just one caveat there seul. What Jeff said was he would be a Colonel and his RR would be that of a FM. However some pertinant issues spring to mind.
Seulessliathan wrote:
indeed, but after you are a Field Marshal with a relative rank factor of 2.0 (i doubt it will be 2.0, but let´s say it would be) .....
Seulessliathan wrote:Fruitcake wrote:Just one caveat there seul. What Jeff said was he would be a Colonel and his RR would be that of a FM. However some pertinent issues spring to mind.
I guess Jeff is talking about playing as a cook for one year, playing 5000 games, so his rr is about 3.0 and his score is let´s say 500. (not sure if this works)
I this case it might be possible to get to 3k points by playing 1000 more games ..... then he played 5000 games having 500 points and 3.0, after he goes up for points .... sure, his rr will drop, but maybe from 3.0 to 2.0 while he has 3k or 4k points.
All this might be possible, but i doubt anybody is willing to lose 95% of 5000 games on purpose to get a great rr after (which will drop after anyway)
Fruitcake wrote:Seulessliathan wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal
indeed, but after you are a Field Marshal with a relative rank factor of 2.0 (i doubt it will be 2.0, but let´s say it would be) ..... and you will be down to 1.0 or less quickly. No way to keep rank and rr of 2.0. So the system will still work. And, while you increase your rank, rr is already slowing down, and you won´t have 2.0 when you get to 3k or 4k points.
I like the suggestion, of course there might be ways to do things like what Jeff is talking about, but i guess it would work better than the current system.
Just one caveat there seul. What Jeff said was he would be a Colonel and his RR would be that of a FM. However some pertinant issues spring to mind.
(1) How would a player such as him manage that descent without literally 'breaking the rules'
(2) To have a RR of 2.0 at Colonel means he would have to be playing and beating 5,000 point players all the time once he was there.
(3) A continuation of (2)...To achieve a map rank of 2.0 during his rise would mean he could only take on those who's points were at least double his. Now if he was a 500 pointer fair enough (and let's not return to how he achieved that), however, once he was at 1500 points, he would have to consistently beat Brigadiers.
Jeff Hardy wrote:Fruitcake wrote:Seulessliathan wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote:relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal
indeed, but after you are a Field Marshal with a relative rank factor of 2.0 (i doubt it will be 2.0, but let´s say it would be) ..... and you will be down to 1.0 or less quickly. No way to keep rank and rr of 2.0. So the system will still work. And, while you increase your rank, rr is already slowing down, and you won´t have 2.0 when you get to 3k or 4k points.
I like the suggestion, of course there might be ways to do things like what Jeff is talking about, but i guess it would work better than the current system.
Just one caveat there seul. What Jeff said was he would be a Colonel and his RR would be that of a FM. However some pertinant issues spring to mind.
(1) How would a player such as him manage that descent without literally 'breaking the rules'
(2) To have a RR of 2.0 at Colonel means he would have to be playing and beating 5,000 point players all the time once he was there.
(3) A continuation of (2)...To achieve a map rank of 2.0 during his rise would mean he could only take on those who's points were at least double his. Now if he was a 500 pointer fair enough (and let's not return to how he achieved that), however, once he was at 1500 points, he would have to consistently beat Brigadiers.
1) i could join high ranked team games as team 2 without a team, id be sure to lose more than i win and i would probably get lower ranks on my team which would increase my relative rank
2) i never said i would be able to keep it, only pointing out that i could get it. in fact, if i wanted to and was a cook long enough i could become conquerer no problem
3)like i said, join all team games against high ranks an lose most because of bad teammates and win some and increase my relative rank a lot. say i wanted to be a conquerer with 7k points, i would get my relative rank up to 3.0 while im a cook then get up to 3k. my relative rank would drop a lot once i get up there but i could still get to 7k and maintain it for a short time
Mr Changsha wrote:As a way of better defining the quality of, say, the top 1000 this suggestion would be of great benefit.
Like many a suggestion I read on CC though I don't believe it has thoroughly considered the scoreboard after page 4.
Now I am not a numbers man, so I am quite happy to be proved wrong in this but...
If player A has a CC score of 700 points then he's a cook. However it is quite possible he plays players of a much higher score than him on a regular basis. This might well allow him to have a RR of 2.0. (bear with me it keep the maths 'within my range'). However, poor player A ALWAYS loses, hence the 700 base score. Yet under the new system he would jump up to 1400, even though he never wins.
Now player B has a CC score of 1200 points and tends to play players around his rank (assume normal public games). He wins some and loses some - as a score of 1200 would suggest - and his relative rank is a nice shiny 1.0. On this basis he would stay in exactly the same place on the scoreboard.
So, the cook who never wins will have 1400, the (by my standards average CC player) will find himself behind the cook.
It seems to me that the problem with RR is that it doesn't take into account whether a player is beating the ranks he is playing or not. Yet this is surely a key point?
*note* I am well aware I am hopeless at maths so if I have somehow managed to misinterpret all this go easy on me Fc!
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
Mr Changsha wrote:
If player A has a CC score of 700 points then he's a cook. However it is quite possible he plays players of a much higher score than him on a regular basis. This might well allow him to have a RR of 2.0. (bear with me it keep the maths 'within my range'). However, poor player A ALWAYS loses, hence the 700 base score. Yet under the new system he would jump up to 1400, even though he never wins.
Mr Changsha wrote:Ah, but you are assuming it is a new player?
What of the 700 rank 2.0 RR chappie who has played 1,000 games?
If the system was introduced retrospectively the mid to lower end scoreboard would become, in some cases to be sure, unusual .
You would have a number of presently cook level players jumping up the scoreboard due to their very high RR and therefore jumping over privates and corporals (even sergeants with my admittedly extreme example) who have been playing with an RR of 1.0.
That can't be right.
So I'm with you if the system was introduced from now and we all started (in some way) with a 1.0 RR from the moment the new system comes in.
Not so sure it would work well if it took into account past games.
Fruitcake wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:Ah, but you are assuming it is a new player?
What of the 700 rank 2.0 RR chappie who has played 1,000 games?
If the system was introduced retrospectively the mid to lower end scoreboard would become, in some cases to be sure, unusual .
You would have a number of presently cook level players jumping up the scoreboard due to their very high RR and therefore jumping over privates and corporals (even sergeants with my admittedly extreme example) who have been playing with an RR of 1.0.
That can't be right.
So I'm with you if the system was introduced from now and we all started (in some way) with a 1.0 RR from the moment the new system comes in.
Not so sure it would work well if it took into account past games.
Not assuming the example is a new player, it makes no difference how long they have been around, the values do not change. It would be almost impossible for a cook to jump a Serge. However, is this any different from my moving ahead of King Herpes or any of those above me?
Mr Changsha wrote:Fruitcake wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:Ah, but you are assuming it is a new player?
What of the 700 rank 2.0 RR chappie who has played 1,000 games?
If the system was introduced retrospectively the mid to lower end scoreboard would become, in some cases to be sure, unusual .
You would have a number of presently cook level players jumping up the scoreboard due to their very high RR and therefore jumping over privates and corporals (even sergeants with my admittedly extreme example) who have been playing with an RR of 1.0.
That can't be right.
So I'm with you if the system was introduced from now and we all started (in some way) with a 1.0 RR from the moment the new system comes in.
Not so sure it would work well if it took into account past games.
Not assuming the example is a new player, it makes no difference how long they have been around, the values do not change. It would be almost impossible for a cook to jump a Serge. However, is this any different from my moving ahead of King Herpes or any of those above me?
One big difference - while one could be 'reasonably' sure that movement on the first few pages would be earned, a cook who just joins high ranking games and always (he may win some 1on1 games at his own level) loses should not be higher on the scoreboard than a pfc with a RR of 1.0, because the pfc is almost certainly the better player.
Don't misunderstand me, RR has its place but I have yet to be convinced ALL the momements on the scoreboard would actually reflect the relative abilities of the players involved.
However, my brain has just about had it with all the maths involved in this (though I have been manfully trying to not think about maths throughout) so I will take my leave of the discussion. Nonethless, I would be interested to see how this would influence the lower ends (corporals and down and a much bigger job...you'd have to look over many, many pages) before I would give my backing for it.
Blitzaholic wrote:the relative rank is flawed fruitcake and favors players like you who manipulate it.
if all check the game finder to see your games, it is obvious what you are doing fruitcake, look at all your buddies from the UK like thankyoucheese, emtec, audax, widers, freddieparrot, raymondo, junior7, phantom7, et cetera, all from the UK, and all cooks and were or 1000 scores and lower, except freddie, and most freemium, funny how you get a new player who is a noob to come a long every few months to team with you and win a ton to jack up your score, then few months later, you recruit another one, so on and so forth.
then thankyoucheese goes against you in a ton of games and you win them all, then you team with him and he has now a score of 300 cause you beat him in all those games or he let you, now you team with him and you win them all. it is a joke. all can hit game finder on you with these names and see a pattern fruity, so your relative rank and score is flawed.
it is quite easy to manipulate that when you have a cook join your team in many of your games fruitcake (like you have done) and you give them direction of plans on what to do every turn, its like you playing both accounts practically but within the rules, but it is a manipulation as you will not lose as many points for losing, and you win more for winning. If you teamed with all high ranks all the time and score high, it is bound to go down, law of gravity.
but so many on here could ask friends to play and lose a ton in singles and then team with you in teams, and there is your cook who you would boost your relative rank which is bogus. You fruitcake more than anyone team with cooks to exaggerate you relative rank, which is a little flawed and fruity if you ask me.
so your suggestion is bunk.
Blitzaholic wrote:yes, i have taught many others on the site, but i do not have a guy join like 20 of my games against me and lose them all, then team with that same person in 20 more when they are at 300 score, and win them all, that is abuse. and many can manipulate this that way, thats all.
what i am saying is the relative rank is flawed and should not be implemented, if it is, then many more will exploit ways of abuse to manipulate their ranks higher then what they are.
you wanted suggestions and more talking in your thread, there you go, I added my ideas and I think it is a poor one to implement, but no scoring system is going to be perfect.
no need to go on the defensive there fruit, but guilt does that to people I reckon. it's merely an observation and was wondering why you wanted this added to the site so eagerly, now I know, and now all who reads this knows.
Blitzaholic wrote:he has like a 500 score now, and when he joined all your games against you and lost them all, he did drop to around 300 or 400 score about, then teamed with you in a ton and now has it back up to 500 score.
why are we arguing about 50 or 100 points?
the fact is you can team with cooks and tell them every move and manipulate your relative rank, and many others will start doing this if your suggestion is implemented.
thats all.
Fruitcake wrote:Blitzaholic wrote:he has like a 500 score now, and when he joined all your games against you and lost them all, he did drop to around 300 or 400 score about, then teamed with you in a ton and now has it back up to 500 score.
why are we arguing about 50 or 100 points?
the fact is you can team with cooks and tell them every move and manipulate your relative rank, and many others will start doing this if your suggestion is implemented.
thats all.
Once again you are not telling the truth....his score is 648 now. he has actually LOST 67 points since teaming up with me, which means his score was actually over double what you originally said...why do you do this Blitz? Why do you persist in telling these lies? He was never 300 points as you tried to make out, he has not gained as many as you try to make out. This detracts from your argument as it makes you look stupid. Do you not understand this basic fact?
As for others teaming with cooks....well go to the top of the class!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what we SHOULD be doing.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users