Changing the way we score

[Fruitcake]

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?

[Seulessliathan]

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.

[Fruitcake]

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 pertinent 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.

[Joodoo]

I like this idea. Make a poll Fruitcake!

[Fruitcake]

I like this idea. Make a poll Fruitcake!

I will do, but I really think it needs more discussion first. All too often polls are ill thought out as are the votes and we really need to review every part of it. This is why I would have prefferred more input from senior players like Jeff rather than the quick, easy, almost popularist 'sound bite', responses from him so far. It is obvious he can think things through so the whole commuity could do with him providing a structured argument so we can all see where the pitfalls, if any, are. I welcome anyone who can really see these problems as we need to do something that the whole community can see is a progressive step rather than regressive.

[Seulessliathan]

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.

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) .....

that´s what i meant with the brackets.

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]

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)

To achieve an RR of 3.0 and be that low in points means he would have to just play ranks/point holders at least 3 times his score and lose all the time. The rate of descent would slow until it stopped....don't forget, he could not play them if it meant they were in a lose lose situation. He would then have to lower his sights to more within his own 'division' on the scoreboard.

You are quite correct in your instinct about how much work this would take. I warrant it would, in fact, be easier to just keep playing correctly and let the points/RR take care of themselves.

[Jeff Hardy]

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

[Fruitcake]

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

Your points:
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
Indeed you are correct in part. However, would it not be better to WIN those games and increase your RR anyway? I know this means you would have to 'run' the teams, but that is part of the benefit...they learn! In my ad-hoc school, I can now count (1) a Colonel (almost Brig) graduate, he was a Corporal when we hooked up, (2) a Major (was a corporal when we hooked up) (3) a Leuit (was a private when we hooked up) (4) a Serge (was a 650 point cook when we hooked up). Both the Colonel and the Major now tend to run their own teams and we rarely interact.

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
You are missing one highly pertinent point. You could not continue taking on high ranks as your score dropped as a failsafe would be in the system which stopped them being in a lose/lose situation. As I mentioned above, you would have to play more in your 'division'.

3) 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
You may increase your relative rank on the way down, but you would decrease it on the way up again. It is impossible to be Conqueror with a high relative rank, simply because of the attrition rate when playing those below you. The best you could hope for would be something near on 1.0 and to do this you would truly have to have beaten the best of the best all the time.....in which case your position as Conqueror would be utterly validated!

[Mr Changsha]

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!

[Joodoo]

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!

1.if "Player A" always loses, his score will drop lower than 700 and it's possible that his/her relative rank doesn't have too much of a change...
2.if "Player B" sometimes wins and sometimes loses(against players around his levels), then he'll/she'll likely have a net gain (unless he/she plays 1vs1 only) because take this as an example:
I play only 4 player non-team games. I lose 5 games against opponents that have the exact same score as me, so every time I lose a game, I lose 20 points. In total I'll lose 100 points. However, I also win 5 games against opponents that have the exact same score as me. Since for every game I have 3 opponents, and 3*20*5=300, then my net gain would be 300-100, which would be 200 points. But my relative rank does not change...

[Fruitcake]

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.

I haven't quoted the rest as it was correct in the logic.

As I am sure you fear, there are a few holes in the mathematical logic of the above. So allow me to introduce "Cretin the cook"

First of all, let's assume Cretin's RR is 1.0 to start with. He plays a 1,400 point player and loses. Presently his score reduces by 10. Now let us assume his RR increases to 1.001 so now his score is (700-10)x1.001 = 691 What has happened is the increase in RR has softened the blow of losses by one point. However, Cretin's slippery slope continues.

Now let's see what happens when Cretin tries to take on a 2,100 point player. If he loses, his present point loss is 690x20/2100 = 7 However, in this case let us assume the impact on his RR would .002 points. In that case his loss would be (690-7)x1.003 = 685 still a loss.

Now if I can take both these games and show you the impact of the increase on Cretin's 'playing' points total, it is now 700-10-7=683 meanwhile, his RR points diff is 700-9-6=685 so his descent is continuing albeit at a gentler pace.

Now in a rash moment our Cretin decides to take on a 2732 point player with an RR of only 0.5 (if that player had a high RR it is unlikely our friend in the floppy hat would have even got into the game). Poor old Cretin loses once again. His RR, however, increases by .003 so while his playing points now reduce to 683-5 = 678 his RR increases to 1.006 so his RR score is now 678 x 1.006 = 682. So in fact his slide has diminished to a single point, but I am afraid our Cretin is still sliding down the slippery hill of points.

Once more he decides to take on a player, this time the opposing player has a score of 3390 and has an RR of 0.8 so an RR score of 2712. Poor old Cretin cannot even get into this game. Why is this? Because the 3390 player would only pick up 4 points for the win, but seeing as Cretin’s impact on his RR would be .002 negative, his new score even if he had won would have been (3390+4) x 0.798 = 2708, in other words this was one of those lose/lose situations which the coding will have to block occurring.

So Cretin goes off and consoles himself by constantly losing. Now if I can take you back to his last score, you will see that it is 683 and his RR is now 1.003. let us assume his RR increases at an accelerated rate of .002 per game and he loses 1 point each time. By the time he had descended gently to that murky stifling netherworld region at the bottom of the last page with a score of 183 (having lost 500 games) his RR has increased by 1.5 to 2.503. His RR score now reads 183 x 2.003 = 367 Now how can it be that he has lost 500 games yet only 316 RR points, it makes one wonder if perhaps Cretin wasn’t as daft as his name suggests. Unfortunately for him, this is only a natural event within the system. Seeing as Cretin always takes on better players with higher points, and loses. There are times when his RR loss is less than 1.0 points. The further lower he sinks, the more often this happens. However, the way it is structured, even if his losses slowed to just 0.1 a game, he would still inevitably sink, slowly and inexorably, to the pit of his own talentless total.

Hope this helps (as I sit in the bright sunny uplands of the first page where the air is clear and the sun always shines ….)

[Mr Changsha]

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]

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]

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.

[Fruitcake]

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.

You have missed one important issue. Look at the example of 'Cretin' the cook. Although his RR is steadily rising, he still loses so would be lower than the PFC

[Blitzaholic]

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.

[Fruitcake]

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.

Well let’s take your ‘facts’ in turn shall we? Apart from your ignoring those players such as Toads who should also be on the list, your assumption of 1000 scores or lower is flawed…why am I not surprised? Check out their scores, then add any two to mine and see what the total is. This is often the case with you Blitz, and a damned shame it is that you allow your vision to be so coloured. Apart from cheese, nearly all those you have mentioned were over 1000 points. Furthermore, I am unsure what you define as a noob, but I doubt many of them could be classed as such. Lastly, thankyoucheese does not have a score of 300, his score is 600+, at worst he was around 520. What figures are you viewing Blitz? Are you trying to manipulate the figures to try to prove a point?

To run a game takes effort and thought Blitz, to run a game with low ranks who otherwise would make errors, even more. Would you have us all ignore them? Would you prefer it if they pressed their poor faces up to the window as you crowed about how successful you are in your interminable ‘look at me’ threads? Would you prefer it if those peasants were kept in their place? Maybe this is an issue only you can deal with Blitz, but please don’t come laying it at my door.

I have never made any secret of my relationship and the two way benefit that occurs from this. Have you spent time teaching others Blitz? Have you bothered to try to get others to be better players? If so, then your argument holds no water as you will know and have done exactly what I do. If you haven’t, then shame on you, your input apart from (now what was it you were called….oh yes) your competition farming your input has been limited to not much more than a bunch of threads trying to puff yourself up.

Relative Rank is only good for so long, or maybe the Maths is beyond your ken, who knows? So just sit back and let me explain. As a player with 3,800+ points, it matters little what ranks I have in my teams. Generally we are going to be way over 5500 even 6000 points at any given time. This means a team of majors could take us on and be assured of a 20/20 odd result. Are you saying that majors are not good players and this is easy? Perhaps your arrogance shows a tad too much Blitz.

Furthermore, regarding Relative Rank, the facts are I have realised very early on that to keep a relative rank of reasonable level I needed to persist in putting in the time and effort in what I do, I ask you again, have you done this?

Regarding your last point about asking friends then losing a ton in singles etc. I am unsure what it is you are saying. Are you suggesting I deliberately ask players to lose to bolster my own success? If so, be honest if you can and accuse me, otherwise once again, your words hold little real substance.

I will not respond further to your attacks Blitz, you have always had a problem with RR, maybe it is because, for a Colonel, yours is so very low at 0.547, which effectively gives you an RR score of 1445 (a Sergeant 1st Class).

The ironic part of this is that you would actually benefit from an RR adjusted scoreboard. Your RR is so low that you would quickly capitalise in your progress back up the scoreboard and your real level of talent would be there for all to see!

[Blitzaholic]

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.

[timmy1]

To me, relative rank mostly just compresses everyone into a thinner range. There will be some jumbling of positions but that will mostly depend on how long you've been at a high or low rank. As Jeff stated, we could derank on purpose and be better off for it when we return.

For those of us who set up games for anyone to join, we have less choice about what rank we play. Instead it would put YOUR rank in the hands of someone who wants to play you just so they can rank-up, almost regardless of if they win or lose. This would probably end up causing people to just not start games anymore and weaken all of CC.

RR effectively hurts higher ranked players so lower ranked players can be ranked relatively higher. I'm not Robin Hood and am opposed to this system.

[Blitzaholic]

quoting fruitcake: Regarding your last point about asking friends then losing a ton in singles etc. I am unsure what it is you are saying. Are you suggesting I deliberately ask players to lose to bolster my own success? If so, be honest if you can and accuse me, otherwise once again, your words hold little real substance.


this here fruit i was not accusing you of doing this, this part here was simply saying that if relative rank was implemented, some or many may do this and other forms of abuse is all.

[Fruitcake]

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.

Oh Blitz...you are so in need of some soothing. cheese (for I assume that's who you are fixated about) didn't lose them all. Nor were his points around 300. Why do you tell these lies? Is it because you cannot help yourself? I feel very sad that you seem to need to do so.

Your ideas are not based on arguing why something will or wont work, they are based on a subjective attack, and for that I seriously do feel a certain sense of sadness for you.

RR has many cause and effects, some of which in your haste, you have alluded to, But you really need to shake this fixation off first.

[Blitzaholic]

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? a cook is a cook!

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]

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.

[Blitzaholic]

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.

same diff, 400, 500, 600, cook

you missing the prinicple of this, you are not an idiot? i dont think you are, so you know what i mean by what i say. so take it as a suggestion, there is no perfect system.

I commend you for trying to enhance the cc site with an idea, but this isnt going to happen simply cause more abuse can take place.