Fair Ranks

The whole idea of fair ranks in CWs is more than ridiculous to me. The point of CW is to see who is the best and I think every cln, if wants so, can player their best players no matter who opponents are. There doesn't have to be any equality when CWing, imagine if Barcelona or Miami Heat has to play their bench players, otherwise they won't get an opponent. And yes, those things happen because CW system is still flawed and allows stuff like that.

I offer two statements, a few questions, a few possible answers, then three thoughts:

S1: There are accounts, and there are players. Players challenge each others accounts in AW. Any given account, therefore, cannot be said to be a measure of any player's skill. Occasionally, more than one person/player uses another's account. I hope this practice is rare.

S2: Implement an Elo-type-system based on the current data available for past CWs, if people are concerned about 'fairness'.

Q1: Is the goal to have 'x' teams, with each team to have a 1 / x chance of winning? If so, let's call this goal 'fair teams'.

Q2: Are we really looking to measure skill in order to assign players to fair teams? I think not. I suggest that we are looking for a player's efficency - how effective they are at using their skill, experience, knowledge, and upgrades to win with as few allies as possible.

Q3: Are 'gut checks' and 'personal experience' of any practical use to a community of players that may not have continual access to, or consensus with, or even agreement upon who the One True Truth Giver is? For the purpose of selecting 'fair teams' at all times, no.

Q4: Is there a method by which we can assess an account's experience, upgrades, skill, wins and the totality of their AW experience? That's called SP. To assess their competitive totality, their success against another given account's success, divide the account SP by the number of turns the account has played. I would call this efficiency.

Q5: Will there always be those who deny the validity of any objective measure? Absolutely. For those players, I offer the following approaches:

- Non-CW Team Games: Player with the lowest SP picks first, next-lowest SP picks their team next, etc. with the maxim that any player who picks must pick the team with the lowest count of players. If all teams are of equal count, they may then choose the team autonomously. Lower-rank alts (those with skill concealed by their rank) are much less likely to gain the team members they desire.

- CW Games: I argue that no clan should enter a CW where they do not have at least a 51% chance of winning under the current system, but players want to have CW 'fair games'.
Because of alts, rank can be said to have no transparent measure of a player's skill but their SP/turns played will have a definite accounting of that particular account's effectiveness. Since it is always possible that skilled players will use a low-effectiveness account in order to 'cheat' to an advantage, the entire exercise of having 'fair games' in CW is moot. It can't be done with the current tools available to the typical players.

- Final thought in the CW-context: For those who want 'fair games' where skill is the only measure, have each combatant player enter the field as a rank 1 new account.

Geschrieben von Dr Lecter, 14.02.2014 at 11:39

Geschrieben von Guest, 14.02.2014 at 11:38

Geschrieben von Dr Lecter, 14.02.2014 at 11:35

Geschrieben von Guest, 14.02.2014 at 10:33

I totally agree with rank 9+ being the same, the "extra" upgrades are just crappy.
Nowadays, ranks mean literally nothing. I could tell, pretty much everyone or atleast 90% of new high ranks, are scenario/UN/whatever players. Upgrades do matter, but not when you have no skills.
However, ranks show how much you played AW, how much experience you have. You can compare a competitive rank 7 with a competitive rank 10, because of upgrades/experience. But again, ranks do not mean skills, therefore comparing players is a "good" way to compare fairness, imo.

How else do you propose we measure this then?

As I said in my post already, no other system in place is a valid indicator of skill.
Rank at least offers us some slight window.

I'm just saying, Fair ranks perhaps should be ignored, but the fact that there is a problem with how the system works cannot be ignored.

Relying on players' skills, directly from past experience, and not numbers or bullshit. That's what I used to do, at least.

I guess it's impossible to quantify skill.

At the end of the day, any statistic is just exactly that- a statistic.
How someone plays at a given moment can (and probably will) vary.

I agree that a CW should be between the best of the best available. Skills, upgrades, premium etc.
War ain't fair.

Geschrieben von Caulerpa, 15.02.2014 at 11:36

The whole idea of fair ranks in CWs is more than ridiculous to me. The point of CW is to see who is the best and I think every cln, if wants so, can player their best players no matter who opponents are. There doesn't have to be any equality when CWing, imagine if Barcelona or Miami Heat has to play their bench players, otherwise they won't get an opponent. And yes, those things happen because CW system is still flawed and allows stuff like that.

Awkward to the utmost.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 15.02.2014 at 11:55

I think Tito just wanted, like he said to make a metaphore for clans always using the same strongest players to play the CW's.

But using Martians as an example is far from truth ...who the hell would accept a CW against Desu, Bonk and me? xD (with me and bonk not joking around ofc )
And Martians always gave chance for everyone to play ...hell i played a CW 3 days after i joined and i didnt know nothing about 3v3. They also let me play 1v1 CW

Stalins Martians

EDIT: awkward moment when it takes you ages to write something and after you post it you notice hundred new posts xD

Player's skill but their SP/turns played

SP/Turns played is a flawed method for determining skill:

1) Abandoned games (thus no sp) the turns will still count distorting the figure.

2) Larger maps, Casual and Scenarios all offer more gain in terms of SP/turns played - it will not be a relevant figure unless everyone has played the same map the same number of times.

The point is, everything is opinion based with regards to 'skill' in this game so no formula, elo rating or stats or anything can determine if someone is good or not, for example some consider Goblin a genius others consider him a noob. Acqui is kryptonite to me, but others beat him easy etc etc etc

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 15.02.2014 at 12:17

Player's skill but their SP/turns played

SP/Turns played is a flawed method for determining skill:

1) Abandoned games (thus no sp) the turns will still count distorting the figure.

2) Larger maps, Casual and Scenarios all offer more gain in terms of SP/turns played - it will not be a relevant figure unless everyone has played the same map the same number of times.

The point is, everything is opinion based with regards to 'skill' in this game so no formula, elo rating or stats or anything can determine if someone is good or not, for example some consider Goblin a genius others consider him a noob. Acqui is kryptonite to me, but others beat him easy etc etc etc

Hell no, SP has NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with skills.

Geschrieben von Caulerpa, 15.02.2014 at 11:36

The whole idea of fair ranks in CWs is more than ridiculous to me. The point of CW is to see who is the best and I think every cln, if wants so, can player their best players no matter who opponents are. There doesn't have to be any equality when CWing, imagine if Barcelona or Miami Heat has to play their bench players, otherwise they won't get an opponent. And yes, those things happen because CW system is still flawed and allows stuff like that.

I still like the idea of a Saturday tournament and was disappointed it didn't catch people's interest. It neatly answers every complaint I hear in this thread and could be a lot of fun.

To summarize: a tournament held over four hours on Sa from 12 - 4 PM EST when the most people are on and the time period when most competitive clan wars take place.

RANKS BECOME IRRELEVANT
Once you add a time constraint, then clans are forces to field their best 3 players and ranks become irrelevant. Low rank clans/players have no reason not to play against higher rank clans/player.

ALTS BECOME IRRELEVANT
They could even become a strategic part of the game.

LOWER RANK PLAYERS IMPROVE THEIR GAME
Not only is playing against better players one of the best ways for lower rank players to improve their game, but it would also be a good motivational source. And an immediate one too. You don't have to wait 4 months for the results.

HIGHER RANKS MORE MOTIVATED TO TRAIN LOWER RANKS
Given that a player may miss that day or a couple hours of that day, stronger players will be more motivated to train weaker ones.

IT WOULD BE FUN

Note: I thought it would be cool if everyone agreed for the Saturday tournament games to be CWs. And everyone agreed not to CW during other times. But that seems kind of impossible to pull off. So starting as regular 3 v 3's and then maybe one day shifting it to CW would be my suggestion.

***********************************

But other than ^^^^^ I'm in favor of matching ranks for cw. It's flawed, but seems like the best place to start. Like a multiple choice test to measure intelligence. Its kind of ridiculous, but in the end the most practical and realistic solution. And once you give in, it just becomes another part of the game. Strong lower rank players become more valuable to your clan than weaker higher rank ones. And the negotiation process before a cw can take some time. Meh.

Geschrieben von Guest, 15.02.2014 at 12:31

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 15.02.2014 at 12:17

Player's skill but their SP/turns played

SP/Turns played is a flawed method for determining skill:

1) Abandoned games (thus no sp) the turns will still count distorting the figure.

2) Larger maps, Casual and Scenarios all offer more gain in terms of SP/turns played - it will not be a relevant figure unless everyone has played the same map the same number of times.

The point is, everything is opinion based with regards to 'skill' in this game so no formula, elo rating or stats or anything can determine if someone is good or not, for example some consider Goblin a genius others consider him a noob. Acqui is kryptonite to me, but others beat him easy etc etc etc

Hell no, SP has NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with skills.

You are quoting me to remind me what I just wrote or to agree? Yes SP is no good indicator of skill.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 15.02.2014 at 12:25

People think im noob cuz i rush and try to win quickly ...but the truth is i do it cuz i need to smoke every half an hour ...never actually lost played a game that was over 20 turns so dont make me stop smoking and go slow roll on you fuckers ok

Fixed. Nobody thinks you noob.

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 15.02.2014 at 12:46

Geschrieben von Guest, 15.02.2014 at 12:31

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 15.02.2014 at 12:17

Player's skill but their SP/turns played

SP/Turns played is a flawed method for determining skill:

1) Abandoned games (thus no sp) the turns will still count distorting the figure.

2) Larger maps, Casual and Scenarios all offer more gain in terms of SP/turns played - it will not be a relevant figure unless everyone has played the same map the same number of times.

The point is, everything is opinion based with regards to 'skill' in this game so no formula, elo rating or stats or anything can determine if someone is good or not, for example some consider Goblin a genius others consider him a noob. Acqui is kryptonite to me, but others beat him easy etc etc etc

Hell no, SP has NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with skills.

You are quoting me to remind me what I just wrote or to agree? Yes SP is no good indicator of skill.

Sorry hue. And about acqui, he came after long time ago and now there are a lot of new tricks, we all know that. I remember those days where taking italy as turkey with a trans was like the most great top secret in game, LOL.

So uh, when are you guys going to realize that you cannot indicate skill, due to the fact that the number of factors that go into it are too large to produce a static ratio representing one's own skill level? If you want "Fair" Clan Wars, you need to train your members every little tactic that can every be known for the best chances of winning. You also need to have good team coordination in an possible scenario, and be able to deter and distract the other team accordingly. A group of rank 7's with half the upgrades could clobber a team of rank 12's with all the upgrades if they just work together, and stop worrying about skill.

Zitat:

Zitat:

Sorry hue. And about acqui, he came after long time ago and now there are a lot of new tricks, we all know that. I remember those days where taking italy as turkey with a trans was like the most great top secret in game, LOL.

WHAT you can do this? Like even without blitz...Acqui will always be a pain in my side, I shall not rest until he is destroyed for good -insert evil laugh. -

Thunderballs, trust me it's pretty hard to train low ranks nowadays. I tried to, invited about 25 noobs to my clan and no results. Maybe it was also my fault, but I can tell, they were ALL scenario players *cough*theyarealsoknownasunfags*cough*. None of them were willing to learn. My first training match I did with them was a 4 people FFA, I went poland LB to balance it a little. Know what? 1 had to go because he wanted to play Europa Universalis, and the other 2 allyfagged on me, and I lost 3 turns. Now what? They were really inmature, now they /pr me and insult me almost every day, I don't care but it's annoying. I was as polite as possible, but still no results.
Ofc, maybe I'm overreacting or I got "unlucky" at chosing players, but that was my first attempt, I want to point it out.

Geschrieben von Guest, 15.02.2014 at 13:19

Thunderballs, trust me it's pretty hard to train low ranks nowadays. I tried to, invited about 25 noobs to my clan and no results. Maybe it was also my fault, but I can tell, they were ALL scenario players *cough*theyarealsoknownasunfags*cough*. None of them were willing to learn. My first training match I did with them was a 4 people FFA, I went poland LB to balance it a little. Know what? 1 had to go because he wanted to play Europa Universalis, and the other 2 allyfagged on me, and I lost 3 turns. Now what? They were really inmature, now they /pr me and insult me almost every day, I don't care but it's annoying. I was as polite as possible, but still no results.
Ofc, maybe I'm overreacting or I got "unlucky" at chosing players, but that was my first attempt, I want to point it out.

Only 1548 more posts to go til you are #1.

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 15.02.2014 at 12:17

but others beat him easy

Who are these imaginary players you speak of?

In all seriousness though you are absolutely right. Obviously skill is incredibly nuanced, ever changing, and can never really be codified. All I propose here is that we use our better judgement rather than a fairly meaningless number.

Geschrieben von Skanderbeg, 15.02.2014 at 14:10

It migt seem ridiculous to you, but you made a clan when there werent maps and scenarios, only world and eu maps, so there were 50% chance that people will play EU map + whole world for gaining sp. That mean easier to practice and train them as they are already used to EU, thats how you had strong clan. Come to my clan and train ranks 2-3 and above for 3v3 and CW, then you can say arranging ranks is ridiculous. Now after 2 years you stick only to those players who are used to EU and already got 3v3 experience. No one is starting new clan with new recruits. No one except Mr_Own_You(evoL) and me(JNA).

I don't see your point. Other clns also have low rank map playing noobs or are you saying that all the newbs are in your cln? But still, don't play newbs in a CW until they become ready and I don't see how are custom maps connected with this topic. Don't recruit ppl who play only custom maps if you want a cln which consists of only competitive players.

Geschrieben von Thunderballs, 15.02.2014 at 13:33

Geschrieben von Guest, 15.02.2014 at 13:19

Thunderballs, trust me it's pretty hard to train low ranks nowadays. I tried to, invited about 25 noobs to my clan and no results. Maybe it was also my fault, but I can tell, they were ALL scenario players *cough*theyarealsoknownasunfags*cough*. None of them were willing to learn. My first training match I did with them was a 4 people FFA, I went poland LB to balance it a little. Know what? 1 had to go because he wanted to play Europa Universalis, and the other 2 allyfagged on me, and I lost 3 turns. Now what? They were really inmature, now they /pr me and insult me almost every day, I don't care but it's annoying. I was as polite as possible, but still no results.
Ofc, maybe I'm overreacting or I got "unlucky" at chosing players, but that was my first attempt, I want to point it out.

Only 1548 more posts to go til you are #1.

Idc. When I saw that notification I thought you did a very long and good text wall but now I'm like WTF ;_;
Why?

Tito it is actually very hard for a high rank to 'train' a new player so I applaud you for attempting to do so. Actually though the only things that can be 'trained' are country selection, appropriate strategy choice, and openings. Maybe a few little tricks like getting extra range or land bridges, but to be honest if a new player plays long enough they will stumble across the latter ones alone. The only things I was ever 'taught' was how to open in certain ways, the real skills ie. prediction, timing, turn planning, cohesion with team-mates, and control of money will always be down to the player to learn and cannot be taught. If I am wrong and there is anything else that can be taught then please enlighten me.

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 15.02.2014 at 14:58

Tito it is actually very hard for a high rank to 'train' a new player so I applaud you for attempting to do so. Actually though the only things that can be 'trained' are country selection, appropriate strategy choice, and openings. Maybe a few little tricks like getting extra range or land bridges, but to be honest if a new player plays long enough they will stumble across the latter ones alone. The only things I was ever 'taught' was how to open in certain ways, the real skills ie. prediction, timing, turn planning, cohesion with team-mates, and control of money will always be down to the player to learn and cannot be taught. If I am wrong and there is anything else that can be taught then please enlighten me.

This is 100% true and it came from b0nker

Anyway, I don't see any more to talk about in this topic Ranks are not a viable way to measure skills at all, and now we are leading to another off-topic Topic.
If you guys wank want to find ways to measure skills, then my opinion, is that I doubt there is one other than knowing the player.

You should get AoW back together, more high ranked clans are good. It's funny how you single out these players though, I wonder if it is because they are good? Or is it that they are fed up with ally fag orientated games so play in a setting that doesn't require allying to have a chance of victory? I won't comment on why you are not in a 'high ranked' clan, that is for you and them to decide.

I have more fun playing 3v3 then I do in other maps, it is my personal experience that matters and I don't like large maps for A) the time it takes and B) the ally as many as can nature. It is the same for those who like scenarios, there is nothing wrong with playing scenarios UN or whatever if that is what you enjoy, neither set of players 'competitive' or scenario players should look down on the other, it is a game for fun in whatever way you get it.

Anyway none of your last comment was about the OP 'fair ranks' so I don't know why you commented in such a manner. I assume it was to suggest high ranked clans recruit noobs and play them in cws, well no, the point is they are High Ranked Clans and should not lower their expectations to fit in with another clans. How about you don't ask for unworkable combinations like a 10 6 4, I outlined the reasons for that in my earlier post.

EDIT: if you are going to play a range 10, 8, 4 then you also have to play them facing each other in each micro battle. A rank 4 ukraine vs a rank 10 turkey or a rank 4 UK vs a rank 10 germany for example would make for a terrible game, that is the reason why it just never happens.

(just incase you are too lazy to read back)

Zitat:

Zitat:

High ranked clans are good if game have 500,000 players community, it doesn't work if community is small. Or you will get current situation. If 100% clans are high ranked, then only them will play against each other over and over again, no diversity, no excitement, no fun.

This is your opinion you are entitled to it, I am sure those playing it enjoy their matches and should not be forced to change ways. I will reiterate it is up to individuals to strive to be better, not for high ranks to force it upon them.

Waaay too much analysis, my point was exactly what I said, SP acquired cannot determine skill.

Also this is another subject, but ELO also does not reflect skill when one can simply choose who to duel, an example is the battles between Goblin and myself, we are equally skilled in my opinion, yet I gain 18 points for defeating him he gains about 4 for defeating me, simply because he plays more duels and thus has a better rating.

As has been said before on this thread, skill on AtWar is only decided by opinion and no statistic or figure can show a skillfull player. Even Columna's detailed stats page cannot truely show this.

There is no logic to defining skill. It is amusing when people look for it.

Best way to decide skill: by seeing how much Air support units destoyed

I will start with a definition of 'skill' in another thread then.
First Principles, Clarice! If you say something cannot be measured, then we should determine what the 'thing' is, first.

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 16.02.2014 at 14:29

Waaay too much analysis, my point was exactly what I said, SP acquired cannot determine skill.

Also this is another subject, but ELO also does not reflect skill when one can simply choose who to duel, an example is the battles between Goblin and myself, we are equally skilled in my opinion, yet I gain 18 points for defeating him he gains about 4 for defeating me, simply because he plays more duels and thus has a better rating.

As has been said before on this thread, skill on AtWar is only decided by opinion and no statistic or figure can show a skillfull player. Even Columna's detailed stats page cannot truely show this.

There is no logic to defining skill. It is amusing when people look for it.

Try not to confuse yourself Zombie. 'Skill' cannot be quantified or defined in this game. Many games it can be, in this it cannot.

Geschrieben von The Tactician, 16.02.2014 at 14:39

Best way to decide skill: by seeing how much Air support units destoyed

If it is your unshakable belief that there is no measure of comparing relative skill between two players, then does it matter the evidence presented? Elo has been used in chess for decades *exactly* to measure relative skill.

That Goblin earns less than you do in a Gob v. you duel, on the boundary conditions you described, should come as no surprise, if you have the most elementary understanding of Elo (which you do).

No algorithm in these types of games will *predict* the outcome of a particular contest. The quantity they profess is a tool to forecast likely outcomes in matchups between players.

Rank is a much more accurate guide to relative skill than absolutely nothing. And I offered SP/turns played as a more accurate measure than Rank. Do you feel SP/turns played is a less accurate measure of relative skill than Rank?

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 16.02.2014 at 14:29

Waaay too much analysis, my point was exactly what I said, SP acquired cannot determine skill.

Also this is another subject, but ELO also does not reflect skill when one can simply choose who to duel, an example is the battles between Goblin and myself, we are equally skilled in my opinion, yet I gain 18 points for defeating him he gains about 4 for defeating me, simply because he plays more duels and thus has a better rating.

As has been said before on this thread, skill on AtWar is only decided by opinion and no statistic or figure can show a skillfull player. Even Columna's detailed stats page cannot truely show this.

There is no logic to defining skill. It is amusing when people look for it.

Again, I'll start a 'skill' discussion in another thread.
Perhaps we have fundamentally different meanings of the word skill, or quantification, or definition, since I *do* believe your assertion to be both informed (you're not making this assertion from zero foundation) and sincere (you're not merely trolling).

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 16.02.2014 at 15:27

Try not to confuse yourself Zombie. 'Skill' cannot be quantified or defined in this game. Many games it can be, in this it cannot.

Geschrieben von zombieyeti, 16.02.2014 at 20:11

Again, I'll start a 'skill' discussion in another thread.
Perhaps we have fundamentally different meanings of the word skill, or quantification, or definition, since I *do* believe your assertion to be both informed (you're not making this assertion from zero foundation) and sincere (you're not merely trolling).

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 16.02.2014 at 15:27

Try not to confuse yourself Zombie. 'Skill' cannot be quantified or defined in this game. Many games it can be, in this it cannot.

Let me explain in one sweet sentence:

This is a matter of subjectivity.

The very fact that you and bonker have contrasting beliefs on the definition & quantification of skill proves true that skill cannot be quantified.
There is no solid, universal measure. This is true for anything in life, in existence itself.

We as people rely on postulates. We accept things as true for the sake of convenience.

Yes, yes, I think we all know our Godel, Liebnietz, Descartes, Derrida and Nietsche (even those who have never heard of them), but in *rational discourse* we all contingently agree to accept a consensual hallucination: That there is a world, that there is knowledge, that from the axiom of identity to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, we can say 1+1 = 2 in decimal mathematics, and that for all A, B, and for all B, C, and QED If A, then C.

Now that we've both established our epistemological and information-theory credentials ....
- Just because bonker and I disagree on something does not prove anything, except perhaps that we think (and you think) we disagree. I accept his sincerity, and he concedes that there are games where skill can be measured, just that AW is not one of these games. To this, I posed the question in a different thread: http://et.atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=12303

- You may choose to ignore both pure reason and repeatable experiences, the very foundations of rational discourse. If that is the case, why would you be attempting, through discourse, to a) rationalize your view, and b) communicate this view to others? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

"To deny the possibility of Truth is to deny the veracity of the statement itself" - Zom B. Yeti

Geschrieben von Dr Lecter, 16.02.2014 at 20:19

Geschrieben von zombieyeti, 16.02.2014 at 20:11

Again, I'll start a 'skill' discussion in another thread.
Perhaps we have fundamentally different meanings of the word skill, or quantification, or definition, since I *do* believe your assertion to be both informed (you're not making this assertion from zero foundation) and sincere (you're not merely trolling).

Geschrieben von b0nker2, 16.02.2014 at 15:27

Try not to confuse yourself Zombie. 'Skill' cannot be quantified or defined in this game. Many games it can be, in this it cannot.

Let me explain in one sweet sentence:

This is a matter of subjectivity.

The very fact that you and bonker have contrasting beliefs on the definition & quantification of skill proves true that skill cannot be quantified.
There is no solid, universal measure. This is true for anything in life, in existence itself.

We as people rely on postulates. We accept things as true for the sake of convenience.