Are the players on CC declining?

[DoomYoshi]

Right now the median score is 1248.

I deadbeated nearly 20 games and I am still above average.

[iAmCaffeine]

I wonder what the median is.

[betiko]

I wonder what the median is.

I guess it s pretty close to the score doom describes.

To doom; maybe because there are more and more new players?

[Seulessliathan]

Right now the median score is 1248.

Well, i don´t think so.
The median of all CC players is probably below 1000. It´s only 1248 if you check the players who were active during the last 30 days. If you count in the inactive players, median will be lower. The majority of players who just play 1-20 games and then leave have probably scores below 1000.
And if it´s true what people say and there are 600.000 CC players, then ca 3% are active. So if you study points of the active players, you ignore 97% of the community. Those players who leave after just a few games are probably the majority.
Btw, if you expected the median to be 1000, that´s the first quartil atm (for active players).
Funny thing is, the average is probably below 1000. Usually no points are lost, just taken away from one player to another player. There is no way to increase the average above 1000. But point resets decrease the average score.

[owenshooter]

well... i considered myself a little bit better than average as a doubles player, before i took my last extended break... came back, no real interest in learning the new games that everyone has seemed to have moved onto and the games i like aren't very plentiful in the games waiting area... so, i now think i'm below average and my new rank seems to reflect that as well... seeing as how i am the obvious clear cut choice as the individual most representative of the 600K users that Team CC touts, the answer is an obvious and resounding YES. the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

[DoomYoshi]

Right now the median score is 1248.

Well, i don´t think so.
The median of all CC players is probably below 1000. It´s only 1248 if you check the players who were active during the last 30 days. If you count in the inactive players, median will be lower. The majority of players who just play 1-20 games and then leave have probably scores below 1000.
And if it´s true what people say and there are 600.000 CC players, then ca 3% are active. So if you study points of the active players, you ignore 97% of the community. Those players who leave after just a few games are probably the majority.
Btw, if you expected the median to be 1000, that´s the first quartil atm (for active players).
Funny thing is, the average is probably below 1000. Usually no points are lost, just taken away from one player to another player. There is no way to increase the average above 1000. But point resets decrease the average score.

inactive player is a contradiction in terms.

Player is a noun which means someone who plays.
If someone is not playing (is inactive) then they are not a player.

[owenshooter]

well... i considered myself a little bit better than average as a doubles player, before i took my last extended break... came back, no real interest in learning the new games that everyone has seemed to have moved onto and the games i like aren't very plentiful in the games waiting area... so, i now think i'm below average and my new rank seems to reflect that as well... seeing as how i am the obvious clear cut choice as the individual most representative of the 600K users that Team CC touts, the answer is an obvious and resounding YES. the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

i believe this thread has been answered... LOCK 'ER DOWN!!! the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

[rhp 1]

interesting question...
I'm not sure.. I've been around long enough to have seen most come and go... I think overall the talent level is generally lower, though there are a lot of really good players here still...
though the median skill level? I'd say it's slightly lower though there are a lot less players, so I'm not sure......

[BigBallinStalin]

Right now the median score is 1248.

Well, i don´t think so.
The median of all CC players is probably below 1000. It´s only 1248 if you check the players who were active during the last 30 days. If you count in the inactive players, median will be lower. The majority of players who just play 1-20 games and then leave have probably scores below 1000.
And if it´s true what people say and there are 600.000 CC players, then ca 3% are active. So if you study points of the active players, you ignore 97% of the community. Those players who leave after just a few games are probably the majority.
Btw, if you expected the median to be 1000, that´s the first quartil atm (for active players).
Funny thing is, the average is probably below 1000. Usually no points are lost, just taken away from one player to another player. There is no way to increase the average above 1000. But point resets decrease the average score.

inactive player is a contradiction in terms.

Player is a noun which means someone who plays.
If someone is not playing (is inactive) then they are not a player.

Correct. They are an inactive player.

[DoomYoshi]

Right now the median score is 1248.

Well, i don´t think so.
The median of all CC players is probably below 1000. It´s only 1248 if you check the players who were active during the last 30 days. If you count in the inactive players, median will be lower. The majority of players who just play 1-20 games and then leave have probably scores below 1000.
And if it´s true what people say and there are 600.000 CC players, then ca 3% are active. So if you study points of the active players, you ignore 97% of the community. Those players who leave after just a few games are probably the majority.
Btw, if you expected the median to be 1000, that´s the first quartil atm (for active players).
Funny thing is, the average is probably below 1000. Usually no points are lost, just taken away from one player to another player. There is no way to increase the average above 1000. But point resets decrease the average score.

inactive player is a contradiction in terms.

Player is a noun which means someone who plays.
If someone is not playing (is inactive) then they are not a player.

Correct. They are an inactive player.

Take your Chomsky-nouns away from me.

[BigBallinStalin]

Right now the median score is 1248.

Well, i don´t think so.
The median of all CC players is probably below 1000. It´s only 1248 if you check the players who were active during the last 30 days. If you count in the inactive players, median will be lower. The majority of players who just play 1-20 games and then leave have probably scores below 1000.
And if it´s true what people say and there are 600.000 CC players, then ca 3% are active. So if you study points of the active players, you ignore 97% of the community. Those players who leave after just a few games are probably the majority.
Btw, if you expected the median to be 1000, that´s the first quartil atm (for active players).
Funny thing is, the average is probably below 1000. Usually no points are lost, just taken away from one player to another player. There is no way to increase the average above 1000. But point resets decrease the average score.

inactive player is a contradiction in terms.

Player is a noun which means someone who plays.
If someone is not playing (is inactive) then they are not a player.

Correct. They are an inactive player.

Take your Chomsky-nouns away from me.

I'm not sure about everyone else, but YOU certainly are declining.

[betiko]

interesting question...
I'm not sure.. I've been around long enough to have seen most come and go... I think overall the talent level is generally lower, though there are a lot of really good players here still...
though the median skill level? I'd say it's slightly lower though there are a lot less players, so I'm not sure......

Your profile says sept 2007.. That s long enough for me!

I don t feel like the general talent is lower that when I started, good players are replaced by talented newcommers, or by guys who had been there for a while that suddenly become good, or by people that were on a cc break that are comming back.

Maybe that s not a good scale, but brigs and up are 120 as per today. If anyone has an idea of the figure a year ago and so...?

[Mr Changsha]

interesting question...
I'm not sure.. I've been around long enough to have seen most come and go... I think overall the talent level is generally lower, though there are a lot of really good players here still...
though the median skill level? I'd say it's slightly lower though there are a lot less players, so I'm not sure......

Your profile says sept 2007.. That s long enough for me!

I don t feel like the general talent is lower that when I started, good players are replaced by talented newcommers, or by guys who had been there for a while that suddenly become good, or by people that were on a cc break that are comming back.

Maybe that s not a good scale, but brigs and up are 120 as per today. If anyone has an idea of the figure a year ago and so...?

I can remember that a score of 2900 got a player into the top 100 back in 2010, currently one would require 3060 points (and I have seen it higher than that recently). I can also remember that when I started playing quite a chunk of the first page included majors... I also notice that now one needs a score of 2714 to reach the first page, I can remember back in 2010 about 2500 would do it, and further back to 2008 then under 2400. So I think we can say that there are more players able (or interested in) to achieve scores around the 3000 mark, and many more players capable of getting up to 2500. This is interesting of course, because the overall active list as dropped by about a half.

So can I say that the quality has gone up as the quantity has dropped? Or that the good players have stayed more often than not and the weaker ones left?

Many seem to say that the cause of this is points inflation (and no doubt it is in part), but I would suggest that MORE players over time have learned how to gain a high score, as well as of course new good players continuously arriving increases the numbers of players gaining a high score as well.

If one considers that there are A LOT of players who are capable of achieving a high score but choose to not do so, then one can only say that there are a lot of good players here on CC.

Here is a question for you: We currently have 12646 active players and 424 with a score of 2500 and over, however how many other players on CC have reached such a score before? How many 'colonel-quality' players are there?

Might I suggest that about 8% of players here on CC are colonel-quality?

[iAmCaffeine]

I could name several players capable of playing to a high rank that choose not to, or have done before and have since chosen to play more for fun.

[Mr Changsha]

I could name several players capable of playing to a high rank that choose not to, or have done before and have since chosen to play more for fun.

Oh, there are many, many players like that.

I can remember when achieving\holding the major rank was the universal standard of a good player. I think these days 2000 doesn't really cut it anymore...certainly if we accept my '8% of total active players have reached 2500 before' suggestion.

So are the players of CC declining? Absolutely not, though I would say that with the never ending expansion of settings fewer players (especially newer players) are able to play the traditional settings as well as before. I do feel that new players these days jump straight into fog, and trench and no doubt nuclear spoils team games and I don't think they have as good an understanding of the basic game and how to win well at it. I base that conclusion on having played so many players on my settings and noticing errors in understanding...and inevitably when I check their typical games I find complex maps and settings making up their experience.

Back in the day (heh heh) we all played variations on no cards\esc.\sunny\fog\chained\unlimited and most played on basic maps. These days new players jump straight into the complex maps and often achieve high scores, but I am far from convinced that these players have as solid an understanding of the basic game as they might believe.

I think this has translated into wins for me... Frankly, a lot of those players (captains and up) do not have as good an understanding of the basic game as they may think they do and I believe that is because many newer players (lets say joined since 2010) have been encouraged to master complex or obscure maps and settings...and btw I blame how clan competitions are organised for that!

[betiko]

Well, it seems strange to think so. One would think that people on the site are rarely there by accident and that they know pretty well the board game. It seems logic to play a lot classic for starts and try other stuff little by little. I see no problem in preferring diversity before totally mastering a setting though.
I don t know, i feel like each of us has his unique way of playing.

[iAmCaffeine]

@Changsha

I agree for the most part, but I don't agree clan competitions are the cause. I think the main reason for such specialist map focus is people wanting to achieve high scores. Since I joined I have seen a few players reach General and higher by only playing certain maps (and on occasion playing the system) only to drop back down to Major again.

From my personal experience, people venture into the clan world because they enjoy the concept of competitive play, being part of a team and facing off against other teams to become the best. You can see this across the gaming industry easily.

I do definitely agree that many higher ranked players lack the knowledge to play basic maps and settings to a high calibre, but there are also those that play all game types and hold a 2500+ score. In my opinion they are the top players, especially when they actively play in a wide rane of tournament games. Players like Swifte and overlander come to mind.

[BoganGod]

My peak on the scoreboard was number 17 in 2010. A truly evil score of 3666 got me there. Now that score would not get me in the top 25. Would be number 30. Playing complex maps is not the only way to build a score. I held brig for over 18months playing team games, mainly quads. Average points earned per win was 10, worst loss was 72 points Game 5564943
Folks joined public games back in the day. Didn't have to be a total attention whore in callouts to get games filled.
I agree with some of the comments earlier. A lot of players quickly find a "complex" map to fill the boredom vortex in their souls, they play that map again, and again, and again. Often they don't learn the basics. Surprising how often you find people with exalted rank who quail at the thought of playing random, and don't have a clue how to play classic dbs for example. I got hooked on feudal when I started on site, and was a bit of a one map wonder. Like most conquest maps, when opponents are of similar skill level, in the end just comes down to who has the better auto finger on the day. Once I discovered team games and quads I never looked back. In my feudal period I wouldn't have called myself a good player, a good feudal player yes, but clueless on other maps.

For more history of a bogan god please buy my book.....

There are a lot of skilled players around. Multi skilled players even. I think of recent times we have seen an increase in one dimensional players. Where there used to be freestyle farmers(impossible now with the lag), there now stand one map with quirky settings agricultural businessmen...... Who often don't play freestyle, but do send a lot of invites to 1vs1, and poly games.

[DoomYoshi]

I am curious to find out how Mr. Changsha thinks clan competitions should be organized.

[ChrisPond]

when i first got on this site, i played mostly 8 man world 2.1, fog, flat rate games. some of the games went on for a year and i was pretty patient and had a lot of success on the map and settings(maybe got up to 2000-2500 point level). i then found some good teammates playing the map and entered the team game phase(lots of fog and no spoils)..still playing a lot on world 2.1 but ventured onto other maps that were similar. That got me to around the 3000 point level. then i moved onto more complicated maps (conquer rome and kings court 2 are 2 of the top of my head). i played a lot of 1 v 1 and team games there trying to master the map (and still play some). That moved me to my current score which is between 3600-3900 points. i think I have been in that score range for about 9 months, never dropping below 3500 points but never hitting 4000. I joined TOFU in September of last year and now play mostly team games and tournaments. I pretty much play any map and any setting and my score has pretty much stayed the same. I would consider myself a specialist on a few maps with certain settings but I also know I am a good teammate on any map and setting as I will spend the time to figure out a good strategy.

A quick search of my first 500 games versus my last 200 games would verify everything I said. i have come a long way but have a long way to go before i tire of this site.

I am also pretty much a tournament whore (picking and choosing the ones I feel I have the best odds to win) and I rarely join a public game anymore...tournament and clan games give me more games than i can handle.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i've noticed that running tournaments seems to take longer to fill these days. i've had 16 player 1v1 doodle tournaments fill in about 12 hours on a regular basis. now it takes several days to fill one. the standard games are seeming to take way longer to fill. ( 6 player games and such ) i've also noticed this trend when creating public games. and even team games. i think polymorphic has put a damper on the team games, and just a dwindling number of players have made sluggish the regular standard games. when i first came here i mainly played 8 player no spoils fog games on world 2.1. it seemed there was a pretty regular following for that type of game. recently i dabbled back into them and it took almost 3 months to fill a similar game.

i do like polymorphic games, as i think most everyone else does that stuck mainly with team games for so long, but i king of think that those games, along with all the other crazy settings are spreading out an already thinning supply of players that makes games harder to fill which in turn makes people lose interest in playing, which thins the supply of players more....etc...etc......until it just comes down to a site full of nothing but a bunch of forum trolls that have lost interest in the game along time ago anyway. ( not saying anything bad about anyone because i read the forums more than i play games ) i do notice however that when i do play games, i play a good mix, and also run quite a few tournaments and there are a good number of forum goers that i never see in these games. i myself used to keep anywhere from 30 to 60 active games going at once. amizingly to myself i kept that up for years. now i'm at 4 and have been that way for the past 6 month. i don't look for that number ever to get back above 10. maybe i'm just worn out of cc. or maybe too much of a good thing is a bad thing. i think everyone realizes that the site is decaying tho. of course i don't have access to the numbers.

[iAmCaffeine]

I agree with the sentiment that more settings results in a wider variety of games and therefore, on average, games can take longer to fill. However, I disagree that the problem is the range of settings available, but the lack of active players. Advertising games in Callouts helps as well.

Secondly, maybe try and freshen up the games you play or arrange some kind of challenge against someone? Re-jigging your habits often makes things more interesting. On occasion I decide to scrap my rank and play whatever I feel like playing.

Finally, sixteen 1v1 Doodle Earth tournaments, really? Ever think maybe people are bored of that? I also think people are more selective in the games they play on a competitive level, which would result in that filling at a slower rate.

[WILLIAMS5232]

However, I disagree that the problem is the range of settings available, but the lack of active players.

i kind of feel that this goes hand in hand. but i would not be willing to take away a setting that someone else enjoys just because i'm not a fan.

Advertising games in Callouts helps as well.

i've tried this in the past with not very good results. maybe i need to work on my charm.

Secondly, maybe try and freshen up the games you play or arrange some kind of challenge against someone? Re-jigging your habits often makes things more interesting. On occasion I decide to scrap my rank and play whatever I feel like playing.

i change up quite a bit. except i rarely venture into the newer settings other than poly games. mainly the 8 player games i used to enjoy seem less popular now than they were back then.

Finally, sixteen 1v1 Doodle Earth tournaments, really? Ever think maybe people are bored of that? I also think people are more selective in the games they play on a competitive level, which would result in that filling at a slower rate.

what1?!? youre telling me you don't want to play a 1v1 doodle bracket?????? i realize they're not for everyone, but it attracts the players that want alot of tournament medals, and the ones that have trouble getting them. not for the easily aggravated tho. there's still quite a crowd for it. like i said, they still fill in about 3 days while the others take a week or better. just had a 16 player 1v1 arms race bracket fill up in about 6 days. i do a wide range of tournaments and have been doing them for a fair amount of time enough to say i've noticed a slowing trend in how quickly they fill.

the holiday season may have a bit to do with it as well. maybe as we dive deeper into feb. things will start to pick up a bit more. i know i was kind of uninvolved for the past few months.

[iAmCaffeine]

However, I disagree that the problem is the range of settings available, but the lack of active players.

i kind of feel that this goes hand in hand. but i would not be willing to take away a setting that someone else enjoys just because i'm not a fan.

Advertising games in Callouts helps as well.

i've tried this in the past with not very good results. maybe i need to work on my charm.

Secondly, maybe try and freshen up the games you play or arrange some kind of challenge against someone? Re-jigging your habits often makes things more interesting. On occasion I decide to scrap my rank and play whatever I feel like playing.

i change up quite a bit. except i rarely venture into the newer settings other than poly games. mainly the 8 player games i used to enjoy seem less popular now than they were back then.

Finally, sixteen 1v1 Doodle Earth tournaments, really? Ever think maybe people are bored of that? I also think people are more selective in the games they play on a competitive level, which would result in that filling at a slower rate.

what1?!? youre telling me you don't want to play a 1v1 doodle bracket?????? i realize they're not for everyone, but it attracts the players that want alot of tournament medals, and the ones that have trouble getting them. not for the easily aggravated tho. there's still quite a crowd for it. like i said, they still fill in about 3 days while the others take a week or better. just had a 16 player 1v1 arms race bracket fill up in about 6 days. i do a wide range of tournaments and have been doing them for a fair amount of time enough to say i've noticed a slowing trend in how quickly they fill.

the holiday season may have a bit to do with it as well. maybe as we dive deeper into feb. things will start to pick up a bit more. i know i was kind of uninvolved for the past few months.

Fair enough mate, we pretty much agree. Athough I don't think new settings are driving existing players away, they could concern new users who see loads of things they aren't familiar with when all they did was Google for an online risk game. Perhaps a system should be introduced where new settings are unlocked after certain amounts of games played. Like Nuclear and Zombie after 50 games, Freestyle after 100, Parachute after 150.. No thought went into the figures, just examples.

[DoomYoshi]

until it just comes down to a site full of nothing but a bunch of forum trolls that have lost interest in the game along time ago anyway. ( not saying anything bad about anyone because i read the forums more than i play games )

I'm innocent, I swear!