Conquer Club Map Rank GL

[Peregrine]

This is a great tool! Thank you.
Is there any way to include some game settings for this program, such as; singles, dubs, trips; fortification settings; and spoils settings?

[Timminz]

Is there any way to include some game settings for this program, such as; singles, dubs, trips; fortification settings; and spoils settings?

You can do that by going to the Gamefinder page, selecting the settings you want, and pressing the "Map rank" button. It's below the standard "Search" button.

[porkenbeans]

Ya know what would be awesome ?

- A top 100 score board of only the players that maintain an EQ.
Did you know that only 2 players in the top 20 do.


Seulessliathan

Fruitcake

It could be On the MAP RANK page.
I would be very interested to learn just how far down the CC leaderboard this list will take us.

[Peregrine]

You can do that by going to the Gamefinder page, selecting the settings you want, and pressing the "Map rank" button. It's below the standard "Search" button.

Cool thanks. Turns out I needed to install the update.

[fishydance]

Ya know what would be awesome ?

- A top 100 score board of only the players that maintain an EQ.
Did you know that only 2 players in the top 20 do.


Seulessliathan

Fruitcake

It could be On the MAP RANK page.
I would be very interested to learn just how far down the CC leaderboard this list will take us.

I don't fully agree with these designations. There are people at CC that I enjoy playing with. In fact that's why I came here and bought a membership - to play with my loved ones. It used to be fun, as long as I was a low rank.

Now if I start a public game and lower ranked players choose to join, I'm called a point hoarder. What the heck happened? We did exactly the same thing when we started as lowly question marks, and that was perfectly okay. It is apparent that once a player gets mid way up in ranking they are forced to only play private games against the same rank (or higher). The alternative is to be labeled a "farmer".

That is the very reason I've lost my desire to play. For some time now, this has been my only means of R&R, because when I'm not at the office I'm home-bound caring for my dying father. Now I no longer enjoy playing, because of those who choose to spend their time judging other players.

[pimphawks70]

is there anyway to get tabs on unique defeats per map with the new way the start a game is set up?

[chipv]

is there anyway to get tabs on unique defeats per map with the new way the start a game is set up?

Fix is done, coming shortly.

[pimphawks70]

1.1.9 available , adjusts for new recent select map dropdowns and lightbox changes.
Also Min Empty Slots added as requested.

cool

[chipv]

Sorry fixed 2 scripts at the same time...

1.0.8 is available with all necessary fixes (also to medal summary links).

You can see your unique defeats in blue in the select box, not much choice over this.

[lancehoch]

Hey chip. Nice work keeping the scripts running with the new updates. I just noticed that when I maprank myself on the sidebar, the number of games is not correct. It seems that the games played on the old Classic Map are listed under both Classic and Classic: Shapes. I have not played and games on Centerscape or its predecessor, so I am not sure if it does the same thing for that map as well. The only reason I noticed is because I have more wins and a higher win % on the sidebar maprank than I do on my profile.

[chipv]

Hey chip. Nice work keeping the scripts running with the new updates. I just noticed that when I maprank myself on the sidebar, the number of games is not correct. It seems that the games played on the old Classic Map are listed under both Classic and Classic: Shapes. I have not played and games on Centerscape or its predecessor, so I am not sure if it does the same thing for that map as well. The only reason I noticed is because I have more wins and a higher win % on the sidebar maprank than I do on my profile.

That sounds like an old one - have you uninstalled associated preferences recently?

[lancehoch]

That sounds like an old one - have you uninstalled associated preferences recently?

Apparently I had not. Thanks for the help.

[porkenbeans]

That sounds like an old one - have you uninstalled associated preferences recently?

Apparently I had not. Thanks for the help.

Chip you are the MAN. I want you to know that I am the biggest proponent of MAP RANK. However I am hearing a lot of flack from players that are not at all happy with their R.R.
In most cases the low R.R is a result of a bunch of maps that the player has only played once or twice. They were just unlucky and got a low ranking opponent. I try to tell them to just play a couple of games on those maps with some high ranks.
Here is my solution. Take all the maps with less than 6 games and group them in a misc. maps category. This way, more people would become E.Q.' And would be more widely accepted by the non-farming majority. I would also change the "Point Hoarder" designation to something like "bully".
Thank you Chip. M.R. is just plain awesome.

[fishydance]

However I am hearing a lot of flack from players that are not at all happy with their R.R.

I don't give a hoot about my R.R. But it does bother me when other people feel the need to make remarks about my R.R on the forums, game chat, or via PMs. I thought this was supposed to be a game, not the Spanish Inquisition!

On a happier note, I am very impressed with the Map Rank tool, and appreciate the hard work that was put into it. It's great - it's a shame some players feel the need to use it to disparage other players. I certainly don't think that was the intent of the maker.

So many thanks for the tool, Chip! I've enjoyed using it. If the day comes that I return to CC, I'm sure I'll enjoy using it again (and it will probably be even more amazing)

[chipv]

However I am hearing a lot of flack from players that are not at all happy with their R.R.

I don't give a hoot about my R.R. But it does bother me when other people feel the need to make remarks about my R.R on the forums, game chat, or via PMs. I thought this was supposed to be a game, not the Spanish Inquisition!

On a happier note, I am very impressed with the Map Rank tool, and appreciate the hard work that was put into it. It's great - it's a shame some players feel the need to use it to disparage other players. I certainly don't think that was the intent of the maker.

So many thanks for the tool, Chip! I've enjoyed using it. If the day comes that I return to CC, I'm sure I'll enjoy using it again (and it will probably be even more amazing)

There are far more important things in real life than the opinions of anonymous internet posters, most of them children, so please just ignore comments you don't care for. RR was put into Map Rank on request and I regretted it almost instantly as there was a furore at that time also unsurprisingly as it is a divisive stat. It is also not supposed to be used singly for indicating skill. Kill ratio is a far better measure but even that is not good enough alone. RR levels are still not right - they are due a change as we felt they were not quite right a while ago but I haven't heard any suggestions at level changes.

If you have any suggestions for changes please post them here by all means, but I suggest you should stick around and enjoy many upcoming changes which will enhance the game playing aspect of your CC experience.

[chipv]

That sounds like an old one - have you uninstalled associated preferences recently?

Apparently I had not. Thanks for the help.

Chip you are the MAN. I want you to know that I am the biggest proponent of MAP RANK. However I am hearing a lot of flack from players that are not at all happy with their R.R.
In most cases the low R.R is a result of a bunch of maps that the player has only played once or twice. They were just unlucky and got a low ranking opponent. I try to tell them to just play a couple of games on those maps with some high ranks.
Here is my solution. Take all the maps with less than 6 games and group them in a misc. maps category. This way, more people would become E.Q.' And would be more widely accepted by the non-farming majority. I would also change the "Point Hoarder" designation to something like "bully".
Thank you Chip. M.R. is just plain awesome.

RR should not be used as a single stat for skill measurement - the nature of the points system dictates that. I suggest looking at kill ratio and maybe combining that with other stats, RR is far too divisive given the current scoring system.

[porkenbeans]

That sounds like an old one - have you uninstalled associated preferences recently?

Apparently I had not. Thanks for the help.

Chip you are the MAN. I want you to know that I am the biggest proponent of MAP RANK. However I am hearing a lot of flack from players that are not at all happy with their R.R.
In most cases the low R.R is a result of a bunch of maps that the player has only played once or twice. They were just unlucky and got a low ranking opponent. I try to tell them to just play a couple of games on those maps with some high ranks.
Here is my solution. Take all the maps with less than 6 games and group them in a misc. maps category. This way, more people would become E.Q.' And would be more widely accepted by the non-farming majority. I would also change the "Point Hoarder" designation to something like "bully".
Thank you Chip. M.R. is just plain awesome.

RR should not be used as a single stat for skill measurement - the nature of the points system dictates that. I suggest looking at kill ratio and maybe combining that with other stats, RR is far too divisive given the current scoring system.

RR in itself is not divisive. But, It is a very good tool to ferret out the Noob Farmers. The RR is by no means the determination of skill. The only thing that it does determine is, if a player is earning his points honorably or not. And that is all most of us want. We want to compete and gauge ourselves against others that play the same way. Most of the folks that throw around M.R., Do NOT know the first thing about how to use this tool. But, To those that do, It is not unlike "night vision". With it you can clearly see the bad guys. Now whether or not, this was your intention when scripting it, ...the fact remains, and I am very thankful of this.

[FarangDemon]

Does your updated version use geometric mean or does it still use arithmetic mean to calculate the relative rank?

I echo Porkenbean's thankful sentiments. This is one of the most promising tools at our disposal to make ConquerClub more competitive.

[chipv]

Does your updated version use geometric mean or does it still use arithmetic mean to calculate the relative rank?

I echo Porkenbean's thankful sentiments. This is one of the most promising tools at our disposal to make ConquerClub more competitive.

Arithmetic. I haven't decided about making it geometric because of the furore about the stat as it is - people's RR would worsen with geometric.

[PepperJack]

Arithmetic. I haven't decided about making it geometric because of the furore about the stat as it is - people's RR would worsen with geometric.

Instead of changing the calculation, have you ever considered limiting the time frame of calculation? The most recent 20 or 50 games is more relevant than a lifetime of games because it doesn't deal with the same massive swings in points. Just a thought.

[porkenbeans]

Arithmetic. I haven't decided about making it geometric because of the furore about the stat as it is - people's RR would worsen with geometric.

Instead of changing the calculation, have you ever considered limiting the time frame of calculation? The most recent 20 or 50 games is more relevant than a lifetime of games because it doesn't deal with the same massive swings in points. Just a thought.

The only prob. with that, pepper, is, the farmers can cover their tracks.

[PepperJack]

Arithmetic. I haven't decided about making it geometric because of the furore about the stat as it is - people's RR would worsen with geometric.

Instead of changing the calculation, have you ever considered limiting the time frame of calculation? The most recent 20 or 50 games is more relevant than a lifetime of games because it doesn't deal with the same massive swings in points. Just a thought.

The only prob. with that, pepper, is, the farmers can cover their tracks.

Disagreed. With the current calculation, covering one's tracks is as simple as playing over your head for an extended period then beginning to farm, thus obfuscating one's recent RR. A shorter term, rather than lifetime, RR is beneficial because it demonstrates current tendencies.

If anything, my suggestion will highlight farming. And on top of that it doesn't have to be a replacement for lifetime RR. It could be another column. Or if chipv so chose, he could make RR and kill ratio user configurable, allowing for custom time frames as well as lifetime calculations.

But I'd rather not get into the philosophical debate of farmitude with you here pork, you have plenty of threads where you post the same ideology in GD. Please leave this sub-forum for the development of Plugins & Addons. Please.

[porkenbeans]

Arithmetic. I haven't decided about making it geometric because of the furore about the stat as it is - people's RR would worsen with geometric.

Instead of changing the calculation, have you ever considered limiting the time frame of calculation? The most recent 20 or 50 games is more relevant than a lifetime of games because it doesn't deal with the same massive swings in points. Just a thought.

The only prob. with that, pepper, is, the farmers can cover their tracks.

Disagreed. With the current calculation, covering one's tracks is as simple as playing over your head for an extended period then beginning to farm, thus obfuscating one's recent RR. A shorter term, rather than lifetime, RR is beneficial because it demonstrates current tendencies.

If anything, my suggestion will highlight farming. And on top of that it doesn't have to be a replacement for lifetime RR. It could be another column. Or if chipv so chose, he could make RR and kill ratio user configurable, allowing for custom time frames as well as lifetime calculations.

But I'd rather not get into the philosophical debate of farmitude with you here pork, you have plenty of threads where you post the same ideology in GD. Please leave this sub-forum for the development of Plugins & Addons. Please.

That is exactly what I am here for Pepper. I was in fact directed here by Sully. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=72702&p=1759995#p1759839
I hope that you dont mind too much if go ahead and ask some questions. I am very interested in the development of Map Rank. I also would like to discuss a sugg. or two. If it is OK with you that is...

[FarangDemon]

Arithmetic. I haven't decided about making it geometric because of the furore about the stat as it is - people's RR would worsen with geometric.

Instead of changing the calculation, have you ever considered limiting the time frame of calculation? The most recent 20 or 50 games is more relevant than a lifetime of games because it doesn't deal with the same massive swings in points. Just a thought.

The only prob. with that, pepper, is, the farmers can cover their tracks.

I agree with PepperJack's suggestion to make RR a rolling average. Covering one's tracks is not an issue because if one has been Equalitarian over the past 100 opponents, they would have had plenty of opportunity to lose any farmed points. It also gives farmers a chance to become competitive players, which they should be given.

I read somewhere that RR is calculated by taking the mean of opponents RRs from every game, averaging by map and then taking the average of those averages. Of course this is going to produce some screwed up relative ranks. If you play one or two games on one map and the opponents happened to be relatively nubile you will get disproportionally screwed even though you played hundreds of peer ranked players in other more popular maps. A true gauge of opponents relative scores should count every opponent equally, regardless of map, and not be arbitrarily weighted by number of times you played a certain map. Change this and I guarantee that you will see a big drop in complaints.

Then you can change from arithmetic to geometric mean no sweat because nobody is gonna be complaining. It is what it is.

[chipv]

I read somewhere that RR is calculated by taking the mean of opponents RRs from every game, averaging by map and then taking the average of those averages. Of course this is going to produce some screwed up relative ranks. If you play one or two games on one map and the opponents happened to be relatively nubile you will get disproportionally screwed even though you played hundreds of peer ranked players in other more popular maps. A true gauge of opponents relative scores should count every opponent equally, regardless of map, and not be arbitrarily weighted by number of times you played a certain map. Change this and I guarantee that you will see a big drop in complaints.

Show me where you have read this. It is incorrect. What would be the purpose of additionally averaging by map?

Then you can change from arithmetic to geometric mean no sweat because nobody is gonna be complaining. It is what it is.

GM <= AM - ALWAYS so people's RR would drop even lower.