Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
+1
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
That's wrong. Might be true for some players but definitely not true for every of the top 25, and I think not even half. Take Kaskavel for example. It does plays a lot of team game but he isn't playing with low ranked players to get his rank. The average score of his team is most of the time higher than average score of opponent team. Same goes for Paengars jalijoo and DerStaufer mainly play multiplayer games.
From the top of my head I only know the conqueror that did what you described.
Last edited by Donelladan on Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Yeah, what Donelladan said rings true to me. I think everyone is aware how the Conq got there and how he keeps it. But so far nothing has been done about it and I doubt we will see a new conq until something is done, or the site dies. I scanned through the top 25, and can confirm that at least 15 of them, I'm aware of personally. They either play team games with teamates of 2000+ or they are playing multiplayer games and winning a high percentage alone. The other 10 or so I'm not sure of, but I'm assuming a majority of them are the same and I just dont play with them.
Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
+1
This is an awful take. In addition to what don / swim said, typically they’re lower ranked for a reason. Inexperience, more mistakes, missed turns, etc. even if perfect directions are laid out, a high ranked guy probably plays it well regardless of the outcome. Lower rank will blindly follow directions / miss picking up on changed conditions or considerations because of failed or excellent dice. They take risks playing w lower ranks and time to team them proper play (not everyone does that but some do).
This “solution” is awful. It’s fixing a problem that doesn’t exist
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
+1
This is an awful take. In addition to what don / swim said, typically they’re lower ranked for a reason. Inexperience, more mistakes, missed turns, etc. even if perfect directions are laid out, a high ranked guy probably plays it well regardless of the outcome. Lower rank will blindly follow directions / miss picking up on changed conditions or considerations because of failed or excellent dice. They take risks playing w lower ranks and time to team them proper play (not everyone does that but some do).
This “solution” is awful. It’s fixing a problem that doesn’t exist
Ok so you think we should continue with a broken system and offer no new ideas. Almost All the 'top' players are team averagers. Thats broken.
Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
+1
This is an awful take. In addition to what don / swim said, typically they’re lower ranked for a reason. Inexperience, more mistakes, missed turns, etc. even if perfect directions are laid out, a high ranked guy probably plays it well regardless of the outcome. Lower rank will blindly follow directions / miss picking up on changed conditions or considerations because of failed or excellent dice. They take risks playing w lower ranks and time to team them proper play (not everyone does that but some do).
This “solution” is awful. It’s fixing a problem that doesn’t exist
Ok so you think we should continue with a broken system and offer no new ideas. Almost All the 'top' players are team averagers. Thats broken.
So you’re choosing to ignore what Don said about “all the top players are team averagers”. Maybe you just think it’s broken
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
To me i think it’s more how the “Conqueror” is represented today, with the way the site is, or has be represented in the past, can’t speak for earlier site time since i wasn’t really paying attention (cheating case to reach the conqueror medal), my personal thought would be based on “variable playing”, meaning the monthly score those days would be the most accurate view of how the site is currently dynamic and who “deserve” to receive such a reward, being Conqueror to play only few games and in very few maps and settings is far to represent a valid scenario of being declare a “Conqueror”. However, and to be granted as “top player” should have more data to be embedded as it is now. Even “monthly” shouldn’t be the best but more “quarterly”, with data collection such as; how many different map win in a quarter, how much game type played (multiplayer, 1v1, Poly, Team), average of ranked opponent should be at “x” amount. Adding all the above factors and a players fulfilling those within a “x” decided timeframe, could be seen as a real value to deserve such a “Conqueror”. This is only to name few in order to qualify being into such a scoreboard.
Mad777 wrote:To me i think it’s more how the “Conqueror” is represented today, with the way the site is, or has be represented in the past, can’t speak for earlier site time since i wasn’t really paying attention (cheating case to reach the conqueror medal), my personal thought would be based on “variable playing”, meaning the monthly score those days would be the most accurate view of how the site is currently dynamic and who “deserve” to receive such a reward, being Conqueror to play only few games and in very few maps and settings is far to represent a valid scenario of being declare a “Conqueror”. However, and to be granted as “top player” should have more data to be embedded as it is now. Even “monthly” shouldn’t be the best but more “quarterly”, with data collection such as; how many different map win in a quarter, how much game type played (multiplayer, 1v1, Poly, Team), average of ranked opponent should be at “x” amount. Adding all the above factors and a players fulfilling those within a “x” decided timeframe, could be seen as a real value to deserve such a “Conqueror”. This is only to name few in order to qualify being into such a scoreboard.
I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
Mad777 wrote:To me i think it’s more how the “Conqueror” is represented today, with the way the site is, or has be represented in the past, can’t speak for earlier site time since i wasn’t really paying attention (cheating case to reach the conqueror medal), my personal thought would be based on “variable playing”, meaning the monthly score those days would be the most accurate view of how the site is currently dynamic and who “deserve” to receive such a reward, being Conqueror to play only few games and in very few maps and settings is far to represent a valid scenario of being declare a “Conqueror”. However, and to be granted as “top player” should have more data to be embedded as it is now. Even “monthly” shouldn’t be the best but more “quarterly”, with data collection such as; how many different map win in a quarter, how much game type played (multiplayer, 1v1, Poly, Team), average of ranked opponent should be at “x” amount. Adding all the above factors and a players fulfilling those within a “x” decided timeframe, could be seen as a real value to deserve such a “Conqueror”. This is only to name few in order to qualify being into such a scoreboard.
I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
Then you can claim yourself as the best current player of the site...yes it is painful to lose points against lower ranked, however if you go over the board you will see a large amount of “active players” who are currently Colonel and above which Colonel to me seems to be already such an achievement to maintain, therefore the potential point loss isn’t that big. Being the Conqueror should be considered as the most difficult position to reach within the site therefore and in order to maintain it, you should demonstrate a large broad of skills...I won’t really spend too much talking about the current Conqueror but only by reviewing his recent games doesn’t show me he is the current best player on ConquerClub, there is many more under him who are playing a good variety of game which demonstrate much more their ability to claim being the best...even though such a ranking should be “reset” probably quarterly to again be align with the current dynamic.
Clanlord Carl wrote:I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
1vs1 is the worst setting ever. It's mainly luck. Why do you want good player to play that setting ? That wouldn't prove anything about skills.
Btw, even though you try to ignore it, top 25 players are really good are what they play and they don't abuse the system to get there - at least the vast majority of them.
It's not because they don't play every settings of the site that they aren't good. let's just appreciate for a second that some settings are more luck based. Playing multiplayers games with noobs also increase the luck factor. It's not that surprising if many high ranked players mainly play team game because 2 team games have a lower luck factor than most other settings.
honestly, the points system just reflects who has the most points, not who is the best player on the site. I couldn't care less of that ranking, the higher you go, the more you are hostage of that system if you want to continue to move up. There is no way you can play a large variety of games with a score of 3500+, so 4000+ is all about farming on a very particular setting, or averaging your points with team games and mid tier teammates. It's very interesting to see that the current conqueror doesn't even have bronze crossmap... that just shows how limited his experience on the site is, I personally don't understand how you can dedicate all your games to 3-4 maps without even trying the other 250 the site offers... The worse part is that top players can't afford to play tournaments and prove their value.
I think real top players from the site such as donelladan and josko are not committed to their points, tey let them come and go... and they have proved to be the best or among the best in any type of game and map settings.
I personally don't think it's fair to remove points from the top 10; I'm not sure I just looked quickly at naruto's games and he seems to play a lot of guide games and bot games because he is so bored of not being able to play point games, in fear of losing... because once you are that high it takes a lot of victories to recover from a lost game.... he is basically trapped by the system.
I don't really know how we could fix this, other than by giving the point ranking the importance it really has... not very relevant! The best players are the ones that win important titles through disputed competitions against other top competitive players (clans, championships, battle royale gods etc..)... any veteran knows that.
The scoreboard says "score leaders". That is exactly what it is. just score leaders. it's not a top player ranking. So no, I don't agree with the suggestion because I don't think points should decay... if the players on the top of that scoreboard want to continue with their self inflicted punishment that forces them such discipline in game selection... well I feel sorry for them... but I guess that's just their version of having fun on a game site.
I think it would be much more constructive to think about a ranking system that determine who are the best players on the site. Maybe giving coefficients to certain achievements on the site based on their importance.
Clanlord Carl wrote:I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
1vs1 is the worst setting ever. It's mainly luck. Why do you want good player to play that setting ? That wouldn't prove anything about skills.
Btw, even though you try to ignore it, top 25 players are really good are what they play and they don't abuse the system to get there - at least the vast majority of them.
It's not because they don't play every settings of the site that they aren't good. let's just appreciate for a second that some settings are more luck based. Playing multiplayers games with noobs also increase the luck factor. It's not that surprising if many high ranked players mainly play team game because 2 team games have a lower luck factor than most other settings.
1v1 most certainly isnt luck if you dared venture into a competitive tourney you would notice the same players managing to win a higher percent than others. Go take a look at the map masters series where we play a tourney on every single 243 map and by 'luck' the same players manage to win.....almost every time.
What about the little ranking symbol that gives out bragging rights being based on a seasonal rating that is reset back to 1000 on an annual basis - to remove the current crop of entrenched team exploiters. Add in team games being scored by their highest member rather than the average and the score might actually mean something.
Clanlord Carl wrote:I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
1vs1 is the worst setting ever. It's mainly luck. Why do you want good player to play that setting ? That wouldn't prove anything about skills.
Btw, even though you try to ignore it, top 25 players are really good are what they play and they don't abuse the system to get there - at least the vast majority of them.
It's not because they don't play every settings of the site that they aren't good. let's just appreciate for a second that some settings are more luck based. Playing multiplayers games with noobs also increase the luck factor. It's not that surprising if many high ranked players mainly play team game because 2 team games have a lower luck factor than most other settings.
1v1 most certainly isnt luck if you dared venture into a competitive tourney you would notice the same players managing to win a higher percent than others. Go take a look at the map masters series where we play a tourney on every single 243 map and by 'luck' the same players manage to win.....almost every time.
I hope that was a joke, because otherwise you're delusional. You can get an edge on 1v1 based on your play, but I don't think anyone can deny that who plays first will have a much higher impact in 1v1 than it does in team or polymorphic games. 1v1 makes it easier to get dealt bonuses at the start, or to reduce the drop of your opponent because you start with a higher drop given the increased tert count. In 1v1 you also don't have to worry about doing a tk for a bonus or opening a bonus up for the opponent by killing off a certain tert; chained forts are also a lot more straightforward (because you can connect a lot of the map together), and bonuses easier to get. A lot of 1v1 games heavily favor who plays first so much it's laughable. I'm thinking of stuff such as england, pearl harbor and WWII ardennes, but any map you start with a tert count that is a multiple of 3, and maps where bombardment are highly proeminent such as waterloo and stalingrad, are pretty bad in that regard. I mean, even the site says poly (and by extension team) games inlvove less luck than 1v1
As per the suggestion, I don't think it's a good idea in the current state of things. Given how the scoreboard heavily favors the lower ranked players in points calculation, higher ranked players who care about their score are stuck playing games that tend to take longer to end. Therefore, they can't just start a bunch of quick games to offset the point loss they'd be facing and I expect the required game count to stay conqueror to add up pretty quickly. I also completely agree with betiko's analysis.
Zabeast can we keep it civil please isnt nice to call me delusional when im just trying to improve things. 1v1 is more random but not random (evidence i managed 111/172 so far playing on every single map in the innovative new marathon tourney and im not top) and 1v1 poly is even less random and more importantly is based on your skill and no one elses. I proposing two simple changes that are practical and worth considering. Seasonal partily reset (multiply the difference from 1000 by a factor like 0.7 annually) to make the conqueror earn their title constantly and team games scoring based on highest players score rather than average to prevent the team inflation method. If the consensus is do nothing i think we are stuck with a broken system. We need constructive thinking, i'm sure there are many ways to improve it, but bring entrenched conservatives against changing anything and no ideas to improve anything isnt one of them.
Of those 17 only 9 (bolded) have public team games and those 9 have only 30 combined public team games. With 112 total team games between those 9 only 27% of their team games are even public.
Here is the reality of the situation, most of the top players are playing basically only clan and tournament team games. Ya, they got good teammates and ya that makes a big difference. But guess what, a team of four 2500+ players who all have high scores over 3k are not likely to lose a team game to low ranked players.
Make it so only the top player's score is counted... it won't make much of a difference. Sure Random and MC will be screwed but most of the guys between 3500 and 4000 points are rarely losing team games to teams with no one over 3k and almost never losing to teams with no one over 2500.
Just because TOP likes to try and cheat the system with low ranked teammates following high ranks order does not mean most of the high-level team players are doing it.
As for resetting the scoreboard, I'd personally be sad to lose my rank, it took me a long time to build myself up here slowly. I don't farm, I don't play a ton of games, but I do win 60%+ playing mainly 2500+ players. Reset me to 1000 every 4 months and I won't see 2500 again I think. I suspect a lot of the team game community wouldn't. Would that truly be a better representation of skill?
betiko wrote:I personally don't think it's fair to remove points from the top 10; I'm not sure I just looked quickly at naruto's games and he seems to play a lot of guide games and bot games because he is so bored of not being able to play point games, in fear of losing... because once you are that high it takes a lot of victories to recover from a lost game.... he is basically trapped by the system.
He plays those games during his normal turns because he's paranoid about the dice.
Caymanmew wrote:Make it so only the top player's score is counted... it won't make much of a difference. Sure Random and MC will be screwed but most of the guys between 3500 and 4000 points are rarely losing team games to teams with no one over 3k and almost never losing to teams with no one over 2500.
And so is anyone who plays with them. How the heck is this fair? Penalising good players more will cause them to isolate even more.... How does that make sense? Too much risk of losing points, so they don't play publicly. I don't think the response should be "lets punish them and their teammates more by giving them and team more to risk, that way they never play anything"
There is nothing broken about the current scoring system. The scoring system is fair. As the reigning Conqueror I welcome competition to supplant me. Because the scoring system is fair, it is possible to achieve this on merit without need for crutches such as point stealing.
Please be careful forcing top players to play games or settings they don't enjoy or just do not make sense. I'm sure no one appreciate this including yourself if you were to be forced into playing other people preferred settings.No player should be abused like that , not even top rated players.
Perhaps a more fruitful strategy is to study how conquerors attained their rank.
Case studies like these can provide good insights for anyone to emulate.
For example it was suggested that playing team games is a good strategy. It is obviously sensible to team up with dependable and reliable players for a good team. This gives any team an advantage over opponents that are not as coordinated.
However,can anyone play themselves to Conqueror with this team strategy?From my experience, my opponents rarely matches my teams' combined points no matter who I partner. The point difference is large, e.g over 2K points difference. So when my team wins, I gain 10 pts or fewer but on the other, stand to lose 30 points or more.A huge gap indeed!
That doesn't look like the way to achieve a Conqueror rank. From my Conqueror's journey, I can say team games did not land me the Conqueror rank.
If you care to look more closely, you will probably see that Conquerors used varied range of strategies and skills to achieve their ranks. This discovery you need to make on your own.Under this current scoring system, there's no short cuts, ya! In other words, it is fair and should be so. Good luck!
naruto, being the conqueror used to be about being the best player on the site, it hasn't been for at least 5 or 6 years. Absolutely no one (apart from yourself maybe) would even consider you as one of the best, one that you would fear to face on any map/setting. most people are not interested in doing such boring thing as you are doing to grab points. Stop acting as if we wished to be in your position... I wouldn't trade your profile for mine nor most people posting in here. Most people really don't care about this point ranking, nor care if it's changed. Points are just one of many factors of how good a player is, given that no one plays the same type of games, nor are serious about all their games. You can hold the top spot for a decade, or the next one that will hold it for a long time will have no other choice than playing as you do finding loopholes to maintain a score as high as yours. There is no rocket science in what you are doing, just a lot of dedication and restrainment from having fun accepting games out of your comfort zone. This is just a question of personality.
I think Naruto and PAP are two that come to mind that highlight the way to be people with good insights to emulate! Pick one map, one setting, and play them over and over since you can guarantee a high win rate. Points are genuinely a joke because as everyone knows, there is no motiviation to play outside certain settings. Naruto would never play something public, something multiplayer or something other than bots or Das Schloss. Its too risky. As he points out, he could and most likely would lose points, even if he were good enough to win on other maps/settings, he'd suffer big losses with what I would bet would be about a 65% winrate at best on other games. There is no motivation to play outside the games that got him there, it's too costly. And as long as bot games or one clan game is enough to keep people as "active" it will stay that way... probably until the site dies, or he leaves for good.
swimmerdude99 wrote:I think Naruto and PAP are two that come to mind that highlight the way to be people with good insights to emulate! Pick one map, one setting, and play them over and over since you can guarantee a high win rate. Points are genuinely a joke because as everyone knows, there is no motiviation to play outside certain settings. Naruto would never play something public, something multiplayer or something other than bots or Das Schloss. Its too risky. As he points out, he could and most likely would lose points, even if he were good enough to win on other maps/settings, he'd suffer big losses with what I would bet would be about a 65% winrate at best on other games. There is no motivation to play outside the games that got him there, it's too costly. And as long as bot games or one clan game is enough to keep people as "active" it will stay that way... probably until the site dies, or he leaves for good.
Correction: your comments are too superficial and full of flaws , even factually incorrect. For example, I play mostly public games( but you said I never) so much so,by default I create public games . You also said I never played multiplayer. That is also totally untrue. You do yourself a disservice and kindly recheck your facts for future postings.
P/s don't lump me together with PAP, I am nothing like that! Be civil in your posting, please.
My apologies. I was referring more to playing outside in games created by others. When I said public that was a poor choice of words. Although, I still don't think playing a 7-player game once every 3-6 months really counts as playing other settings often. I'm assuming you are aware that people often use the word "never/always" to be more exaggerated. Other than using the word public and not giving you credit for playing some multiplayer games every few months, I feel the rest is pretty valid. It's also really hard to look through so many bot games lol.
However in the future, posts engaging with you, I'll attempt to address topics with more precise wording!
