You're nuts. Where did you get that number, out of a hat? So I suppose that General K, Dollabillz, Magpie, and kitty on katnip don't deserve their medals? They must have gotten those by gaming the system or cheating I suppose. Unbelievable.Enzo1997 wrote:Nimmy my point is people who win the week should have 30% or higher...
Only 30% fh wins or more deserves a medal?
- nimrod7
- Clown Prince
- Posts: 9685
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:51 pm
- Location: Under the big top
- Contact:
Only 30% fh wins or more deserves a medal?
Sorry nimmy but really thinks if you think I'm coming up with these #'s you're wrong... Para supplies them. And yes I think you should have at least a 1/4 percentage...
Last edited by Enzo1997 on Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Shockandawe
- Lux Vigilante
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:33 am
- Location: In orbit around Kerbin.
You are listening too much to what para says Enzo. Use your own opinions on the matter.
As for you nimrod this is way way way off base for a mod to be insulting another player. How dare you lock a thread only to create a new one that contains such a negative comment.
You know damn well this belongs in a PM and not a public thread.
As for you nimrod this is way way way off base for a mod to be insulting another player. How dare you lock a thread only to create a new one that contains such a negative comment.
You know damn well this belongs in a PM and not a public thread.
Last edited by Shockandawe on Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Darth Rellek
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:56 pm
- Darth Rellek
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:56 pm
Nimrod7 wrote: 3. If people want to compete for the weekly medal, they need to be able to win on whatever map the chase leader is playing. If they're not good enough to do that, they should quit their whining.
So then why do we have all these other maps open? Shouldnt we ALL just play MOTW for the extra bonus for the weekly medal then?
- Darth Rellek
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:56 pm
- Darth Rellek
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:56 pm
- Darth Rellek
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:56 pm
Still think if we did away with the weekly medal, and honored a monthly medal, we would have more game play, cause then people couldnt just show upon a Sunday and grab the medal from others that have played all week.
I'd like to see someone show up on the last day of the month and try to accumilate a months worth of raw in couple hours HAHA!!!
I'd like to see someone show up on the last day of the month and try to accumilate a months worth of raw in couple hours HAHA!!!
Re: Only 30% fh wins or more deserves a medal?
Last edited by Behemoth on Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Darth Rellek
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:56 pm
- Darth Rellek
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:56 pm
- n00less cluebie
- Lux Cantor
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:55 am
- Location: At the Official Clown Reference Librarian Desk--'All the answers you weren't looking for.'
- Contact:
I'm not sure about Naraku, but I'm sure we can ALL agree that Darth Rellek doesn't deserve any medals. Except for may be that Pee-ing champion one....
Urine good company DR!
Urine good company DR!
- Shockandawe
- Lux Vigilante
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:33 am
- Location: In orbit around Kerbin.
I see this but find me a week that was won in which the said player won 17% or less of their full house games. Without the bonus.dustin wrote:Looking at win % independent of other factors has NEVER been a good metric. It's easy to play weak opponents and win a high %.
The raw system has always rewarded people for who they play against. Some wins are more valuable than others, based on your opponents raw (and some game settings/maps).
Was there a post or part of a post in this thread that was deleted or edited? To my eyes the thread kicks off with a topic heading about fh% wins - the same ones listed on every players profile. I'm aware the distinction between a weekly fh% and an all-time fh% is important in this context. It appears to be missing in the initial posts in this thread.
I'm sorry I didn't see this sooner, but I think the point of the comment was not to say that only a 30% caliber player should be able to win a weekly medal (as there are only a handful)
Instead, I think it was meant to point out the serious flaw in our ranking system. Winning 30% of the weekly games certainly should not be a prerequisite to getting a medal. However, we should have a ranking system that makes it almost necessary to have those kind of winning percentages to get into the top ranks.
A player who wins 40% of his/her weekly FH games should not get beaten by those who win 17% of their weekly FH games just because they played different maps.
In response to dustin, I don't think winning percentage should be looked at independent of other factors, but I do think higher percentages should tend to place better. Also, the strength of opponents is a very valuable thing to look at (as you pointed out), but its flawed with our system. If I play right now I don't think there are 300 players better than me, but according to the RAW calculations .. they are better than me.
I think the calculation of player strength needs to be improved, MOTW bonus terminated or decreased, and the point distribution shouldn't be all or nothing. Just my two cents.
Instead, I think it was meant to point out the serious flaw in our ranking system. Winning 30% of the weekly games certainly should not be a prerequisite to getting a medal. However, we should have a ranking system that makes it almost necessary to have those kind of winning percentages to get into the top ranks.
A player who wins 40% of his/her weekly FH games should not get beaten by those who win 17% of their weekly FH games just because they played different maps.
In response to dustin, I don't think winning percentage should be looked at independent of other factors, but I do think higher percentages should tend to place better. Also, the strength of opponents is a very valuable thing to look at (as you pointed out), but its flawed with our system. If I play right now I don't think there are 300 players better than me, but according to the RAW calculations .. they are better than me.
I think the calculation of player strength needs to be improved, MOTW bonus terminated or decreased, and the point distribution shouldn't be all or nothing. Just my two cents.
I disagree .. and I'm going to use an extreme example to get my point across.Nimrod7 wrote:My point was this. Some weekly winners get put down because they don't win full house games "enough." If they are not good enough, then shouldn't other "better" players be able to beat them and win the gold? It shouldn't matter what map you play. If you're good, you're good. If you suck, you suck.
Picure a map with six territories each worth a bonus of 1000 men. Whoever goes first will win every time. There is zero skill necessary to win. A first time player could beat a room of seasoned vets three times straight (assuming they know how to hold ctrl when attacking heh).
The point is all maps are different, some are more forgiving than others, some require a good start, and some are just prone to marathon. A good player can, and will, win on any map. However, there is no denying the fact that there is a fine line between skill and luck in this game. And personally, I think there should be more effort to make the ranking system more skill oriented than it is now.
-
- Llux Lliaison
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:23 pm
- Location: The plague
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot] and 389 guests