Rating our TOP PLAYERS

[Stockfish]

Hello everyone! Recently, I had an idea that may be funny an interesting, and it is to rate the TOP PLAYERS in some areas to get a final conclusion about all of them.

The 6 areas where we're are gonna rate them are: MULTITASKING (How many task is this player able to make at same time) BOOM (Hell, you all know what's boom) MICRO (Capacity of managing units meanwhile fighting) DEFENSE: (Capacity of defending when attacked) ATTACK: (I think i won't explain how to clean your a*s after shi*ting) and the last one IQ&CREATIVITY (Making big plans, nice plays etc)

 

The way to valorate them is from 0-10 (being 0 the worst and 10 the best)

Example: borgfish

MULTITASKING: 10

BOOM: 10

MICRO: 10

DEFENSE: 10

ATTACK: 10

IQ: 10

Let's make it with some top players and let's see what does everyone think of them as players!

I propose: borg- , feldfeld , ValihrAnt , Stockfish , DoctorOrgans , chrstgtr , ElDragon , Schweinepriester , superPOSITION , Boudica , PhyZic

If you want you can make a little comment of the ones you choose to rate!

 

[Stan`]

Pinned.

[Stockfish]

40 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Pinned.

Thanks Ultra Stan!

[nani]

player     MULTITASKING  BOOM  MICRO  DEFENSE ATTACK  IQ
feldfeld  6                           8          8             7              7              7

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by nani

[ffm2]

2 hours ago, Stockfish said:

IQ: 10

 

lol

[Stockfish]

54 minutes ago, ffm2 said:

lol

Hahaha, i meant to be 10 the Maximu

n 

[ffm2]

Intelligence then maybe? Since its some kind of measurement unit, it doesn't fit on a different scale.

[Boudica]

This reminds me of the thread where we voted for the best team player, the most overrated player etc. I don't want to be so negative about this, but I don't believe the ratings might be of any high value because:

• Medium players get affected a lot by the displayed ELO rating, and when they do the rating, a high-ELO player will get high-rated in all the categories (in other words, the winner takes it all). I realized this when people voted one of the best players as the best team player. If you take away the booming, multitasking and micro skill difference, there would be many more players that could win the category. Think players like Issh, who know about the team play.
• Typical players don't even remember how good others play. I realized this when I hid my rating in the game and some people I've been playing with for years started asking what my rating is. Hard to believe.
• You have to understand the game well to judge the gameplay well. But the good players already know other good players, so they might not consider it useful to rate them.

I'm now thinking, Stockfish, if this isn't about your teaching experience that you have this ambition to rate (grade) players like this.

[sarcoma]

base 9 to keep it nice

  b f v s d c e s s b p
m 9 9 9 9 8 8 - - - 8 8
b 9 9 9 8 7 9 - - - 9 8
m 9 9 9 9 8 8 - - - 8 9
d 8 8 9 9 9 8 - - - 8 8
a 9 9 9 9 8 9 - - - 9 9
i 9 9 9 9 9 7 - - - 8 9

 

[Dizaka]

IQ & Creativity should be two separate categories or put differently.

You can have the most creative strategies but execute them poorly (low situational IQ).  Maybe instead it should be situational IQ and creative IQ.

[Boudica]

You made me think about the categories more. Let's take the boom category. To me, it's so closely related to defense, IQ and also attack (so subsequently also multitasking). I've never understood when players congratulate others on how many women they could spam by minute XY. It probably also can be learned and optimized pretty easily just by following a fixed build order based on the starting position. I only take this kind of boom as a soft skill, which is mostly only good for troll games.

On the other hand, the top three players are known to do a safe boom, where they can continue to grow well even when rushed at any point (but they still grow fast if they aren't). Does this skill still count as a booming skill, or a defending one? Or perhaps the IQ? Consider that very often the best defense is attack. I rarely find myself just doing the boom because when you compare some early game vs. none, the one side that does the early game usually wins. Knowing how cheeky you can afford to be when booming probably fits better in the IQ part.

I appreciate that sarcoma took the time to do the rating. I believe that it's hard to do and he did fairly well (considering that I don't even ever remember seeing him online). I definitely would have to rate borg and Feldfeld higher regarding the defense. I remember several games when they were attacked while having no soldiers and still barely took any damage. When you rate DoctorOrgans higher then them, you must probably have those team games in mind where he's the last remaining player of the team, who "forgot to resign" and "wow, he's defending so well". Honestly, doing this kind of "defense" would only make me lower the player's IQ rating because you can't compare your results with other team members after you let them down to the point of resignation (which is all what this behavior is about; unless you are PhyZic who now has OP cavalry going to destroy all, but that's not the case).

When we were talking about defense, fpre sure has to be sad to be left out of this. He'd have to get a 10 on your 9-based scale.

I realize that I really have specific games and situations in mind when I think about the rating, so I wonder which situations you had in mind. There has been a game recently when fpre got rushed hard early, yet he never fell. If I had to compare with DoctorOrgans (one of the top 3 defenders based on sarcoma's rating), no supporting situation comes to mind. There was a recent game when we both had to hold two enemies, yet he couldn't slow them down and blamed his allies for this. There have been many games when he never even gets to get a fortress up and gets steamrolled in the first big attack. I can't even remember when he could hold a double-rush fairly well. This just isn't how I imagine a defensive player.

Of course, I won't deny I'm gonna get offended for the low IQ score you gave me, but I respect this opinion because I don't even know what you saw. Just in the replays that have been posted here, I think that I've shown the ability to successfully play a variety of less usual strategies when appropriate. I've done early ram attacks at minute 10, various champion raids getting me to 50 K/D, P2 towering, early warships, or just getting a super strong eco and boosting all allies to victory. And of course, cooperated raids with whoever is into that thing. Those games often ended so fast that it's easy to forget about them when doing the rating.

OK, let's do it like this. Instead of posting my own rating, I'll just argue with anyone who posts one. Sounds like more fun to me.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Boudica
improved my grammar

[JC (naval supremacist)]

lol, boudy triggered again....  extending/writing/editing/reviewing another worthless,endless,useless post .. just to not make his obsessional hate on me .. so obvious.    Get over it boudy, if you refuse to 1v1 me its because you know you cant compete.  Let's make 7  1v1 if you win a single one, then i will start to respect you :)   But this will never happen

[Boudica]

You are right, you respecting anyone is never gonna happen.

[JC (naval supremacist)]

4 minutes ago, Boudica said:

You are right, you respecting anyone is never gonna happen.

oh, if you felt disrespected or offended during games, i apologize and promise to respect a safe space around your CC

[Boudica]

I've checked some of the replays from recent months and you just don't win when you face me directly. Do you always have a bad civilization? Less food? Bad allies? Or what is the reason why it doesn't count this time?

The only thing that I said about the presented rating in respect to you was that I don't consider you a better defender than borg or Feldfeld. If you have any idea why that should be right or wrong, feel free to elaborate. If you don't, could it be that you are the one who can't handle that he's just got a lower total rating from an independent player?

[JC (naval supremacist)]

12 hours ago, Boudica said:

I've checked some of the replays from recent months and you just don't win when you face me directly

congratulations boudy...   so i really dont get why you are so scared to 1v1 me  .. 

12 hours ago, Boudica said:

you are the one who can't handle that he's just got a lower total rating from an independent player?

I don't even know what you talking about. You started to become emotional about scores made by someone i dont even know. I could just "elaborate" on the booming thing reminding that i play very often the slowest civ and that when i play like every celts-eco-bot i just boom as much and on the defending topic. The whole topic is retarded anyway as only the final records of 1v1 matters which is roughly rendered on the lobby score. Btw, i dont understand why i have so much hard times removing that strange idea , sticking on your brain like an oyster on its rock, that records of team games does matter ; coz according to them, top 3 players are average players since they win roughly 50% of their TG,   since, the balance  made takes in consideration the prior of their previous records.. gnééé

[Boudica]

The reason why the stats are relevant in our case is that we are regarded the same for the sake of balancing.¹ There have been games where you were on a slightly better or slightly worse team, but you've only been winning games where the rest of your team was significantly stronger. The numbers were so significant (only around 20% win rate for you) that it made me start regarding you as less skilled and accept balances that would otherwise be wrong. This produced a few victories that made claims about your superiority even more laughable.

The top three players might really often get a team that requires them to do wonders, but we all know that this is not really your case. What remains is trying to blame it on the civilizations. I know you're often playing Sparta to have this excuse at hand, but it's not very relevant for the comparison because I'm most often taking Random anyway, so I didn't have a better civilization in most of the games.

1) The only reason someone asks to switch you and me is that they don't want to play with you. It's never happened for the sake of balancing.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Boudica
added a snarky note

[Ivaylo]

Boudica and JC calm down guys calm down. Its just a game. Did you read the title? 

PS: I would like to watch these 7 1vs1. 

[JC (naval supremacist)]

Boudy, im surgeon, not psychologist, i cant heal your pathological trait to blatant lying

But Ok, lets the Doctor make a diagnosis, but trust me, you cannot dirt all alone my excellent reputation and my fame in 0ad community. Everybody knows me as being reliable and honest. Whilst, you write tons of BS after spending hours on your comments editing/reviewing/correcting in hope people will think you are an Oxford academic

So in december i played 3 days only,  and battle you 9 games ...

Now the autopsy !     I basicaly out-perform you 6 games on 9   And the 3 times " I lost  " i was still first in the team.  Special mention to the game  jc (kush)   > Boudy (Gauls with iber bonus ! )  .   Seriously, boudy, accept you the league below me. You are good bronze, but definively not a silver. Accept your social status on 0ad and your hate will disapear. Be humble and your life will get brighter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Boudica]

I guess you're looking at the final kill count. Let me say that your definition of "outperforming" someone is really absurd. I hope that users posting their rating reflect this when deciding about your IQ rating.

I really can't stress enough how ignorant it is to only compare the final number of kills, and especially if you compare it with your allies when the game was lost for your team. This just shows that you're fighting your team instead of the opponent, and it could be one of the reasons why many people prefer to play against you. You're counting kills occurring at minute 2 the same as Gaia woman kills from minute 30. You pretend to miss that 18 of my kills in the last game were expensive siege weapons, which made you unable to keep pushing on a map with limited resources. A kill is a kill, right?

When you are advanced enough, you might start to realize that it's not the final kill count that wins a game, but mostly the eco. You might start to employ different strategies than hoping for the rest of your team to hold for 20 minutes until you finally start fighting, then preferably going for the weak players (because "a kill is a kill" and "who cares if we end up losing, i outperformed everyone").

I'm not surprised that you selected games from the recent period after my real rating fixture. I'm not gonna check what you left out, but I'm gonna comment on what you selected:

When you look at the first game, it's a balance a good player can't be proud of winning with (especially if he'd like to consider himself superior). CryptoCamelius with a weaker civ beat roscany at the opposite front, so we'd have to win our side with Rockss. But you can't really compare Rockss to Akazid because Akazid is experienced with low-pop games. He knew to do cavalry and he brought a lot of infantry to your P3 attack, even though he even went for a big infantry rush before. You'd have to give me credit for keeping the K/D > 1 after rushes from both of you (and none of my kills were women), but if it was to be just moderately balanced, Rockss would have to be able to push first in P3 because he didn't participate in the rush. What happened instead was that he was going for a wonder and kept too many units on eco. I'd have to get more credit for telling exactly what we needed to do, but I'm only writing this because you'd usually start claiming (without being involved in the chat) that it was me who gave wrong commands to the team. You don't mind saying that from a position of someone, who really was only required to go for his 7/10 boom and then send all units into a fight. So this is how DoctorOrgans outperforming everybody looks like.

The second game crashed in the middle of what would be a losing fight for you (your untanked army of archers vs. our slinger army, properly tanked with 30 pikemen). From what I remember, you were at a lower pop, lacking minerals (no, those few low-income traders weren't making a difference, even though that was why you said you'd have won). You never even got to build a fortress and you were just going to fall in the next moments. Funny enough, you tried to blame (?) my allies for helping me a lot, yet if if wasn't for Rockss from the opposite front coming to me, I wouldn't ever have been really attacked well. Your K/D is only better because hamdich K/D is much worse and you let him take the damage, while mostly only making the lowest DPS unit available. DoctorOrgans's outperforming in action.

Third game: Since Ajan2017 knew how to play, the balance is off.

Fourth game: Your rush made Ricsand resign early without saying anything. I guess he wouldn't have to do that if the balance wasn't in your favor. I congratulate you on not making this game last an hour though. I was rushing very successfully too anyway.

Fifth game: I think you faced me that game. Early rushes, then fast steamroll. You weren't even P3.

Sixth game: You think your rush was getting you ahead of me, but your camels weren't useful anymore that I got P2 towers. I'd be able to get a faster P3. Other than that, I don't like to make conclusions from unfinished games.

Seventh game: Now this is a relevant game. Teams look balanced, my civ is typically considered as worse. We were both holding two players. Now since you like kills, notice you only get about half of them as me. I wasn't rushing, so most of my kills are actually soldiers.

Eighth game: Unfinished, you are clearly losing though.

Ninth game: Yeah, I already commented on that. Final stats look balanced though, so better not make conclusions.

 

There is the summary of the presented replays (from my point of view).

Bad balance: 1 3 4

Won: 2 5 7 8

Lost:

Undecided: 6 9

 

I'm looking forward to you claiming that the imbalanced games were actually balanced well, yet even if they were (which would confirm you have to be regarded as a weaker player), the results don't look very good for you. Now keep in mind that my stats are based on longer-term data.

 

 

[JC (naval supremacist)]

There's a thing you obviously don't understand.

I'm posting this NOT to prove that I'm better than you (ofc i am, 1v1 would be enough but u won't dare to face brutal reality) but simply to demonstrate you were just blatantly lying or talking non-senses BS since the beginning.    And how ? There's a statistical thing named : "law of the great numbers" that basically, says a truth couldnt been hidden by luck for too long , even under a stack of twisted BS you seem some eager to profer.  So  i just had to pick up a sample of my 9 last games to make your theories bit the dust without having to make a deep analysis. I just see that i lead my team to victory more often that you did and being always first in my team (whilst you were just a random second player in 3-4 games)

14 hours ago, Boudica said:

There is the summary of the presented replays (from my point of view).

Bad balance: 1 3 4

Won: 2 5 7 8

Lost:

Undecided: 6 9

"0 Lost" ... 

[Boudica]

I probably tried to reference what is normally called LLN, but you not only seem to not know the correct name of the theorem, you don't even seem to be able to apply it well. I won't go into details because it's irrelevant here anyway.

I don't know how to understand your crazy smiley reaction to my summary of the games. Your methodology of looking only at the kill count is not accepted by anyone else. Maybe this is where you should add some references. You could as well post screenshots of your city and argue that you won because your city is the most symmetrical, but I prefer to not give you any ideas.

The funniest thing is that even when I include the games that were known to be imbalanced in advance, even if I include the game that was closed because of one player early resignation, your sample just by no means shows you as someone who wins more frequently. On the other hand, the only games a sane person would consider relevant end in a harsh defeat of yours.

I'm sure you fear the day when I actually agree to play a 1 vs. 1 with you (not that it's very relevant to my point about your poor performance in team games). Anyway, as I explained many times before, I'm sick of your practices when you "accidentally" delete your CC or pretend to be AFK, so that you can ask for a rehost and get a better starting position. You've shown several times that you are unable to follow simple fair-play rules, even in the official tournament. There is even a history of you rage quitting our rated 1 vs. 1 because "you were supposed to win". You couldn't accept that your simplified view of who wins a game just doesn't reflect reality.

[JC (naval supremacist)]

16 hours ago, Boudica said:

I probably tried to reference what is normally called LLN, but you not only seem to not know the correct name of the theorem, you don't even seem to be able to apply it well. I won't go into details because it's irrelevant here anyway.

No , you will not go into details because you are just displaying a facade of knowledges - when actually, you had probably just googled it. 

me :

17 hours ago, JC (naval supremacist) said:

"law of the great numbers" that basically, says a truth couldnt been hidden by luck for too long

Ah, this is not true ? because Cntrl-F didnt return any results on the wiki page ?  lol  . It's normal because it's often related to what is commonly refereed as "Mathematical expectation"  (Mean of probabilities) .  So you being uneducated on the subject couldnt help you making the link between theory and put into pratice.

So, let me educate you once again with a basic exemple  :  

- a coin, heads (jc) or tails (boudy) 

- your assumption :    the coin will almost always flip on "tails"   (because boudy is stonk ! jc is all fake   ..  jc  only 10 % chance to win ! )

- results : one gets "heads"  6 times on 9 ..     ahh too bad for boudy ..

- probability that your assumption is still "True" and it was just "luck"  for JC  ....   veeery unlikely ..

more easy to understand ?  or you need some bla bla bla ?  I can compute some exacts probabilities if you want.

And so it goes the same with team balance ...   very unlikely they are made uneven each time..   Because, precisely, teams are balanced taking in prior the performance of each player in TG's ..  the more a player is strong .. the more he will be put with weaker players ...   (you can see the evidence of this in the 9 games - im alwys the best by far - whilst its not so evident with you)

 

16 hours ago, Boudica said:

Your methodology of looking only at the kill count is not accepted by anyone else

Always trying deseperatly to grab any argument ?

Feel free to make a complete analysis, we all know you have much of time to spend.  But at the end of the game,  kills can be seen roughly  as the final result,  since,  time > eco > making units > units kill ..   (it's impossible to kill armies with 10 soldiers, just like its impossible to make armies with the eco made by 10 units).

 

 

15 hours ago, Boudica said:

I'm sure you fear the day when I actually agree to play a 1 vs. 1 with you

( ok readers, this is the only thing to remember ,  you can skip all the cries , bs and bla bla bla around)

Boudy, just send message me and add @user1 and some people if you want.

 

[JC (naval supremacist)]

boudica, bronze player

get in mind once for all, that im not even interested to know who is better in TG( did i even started a single debate on the subject)   My upper posts are just motivated to demonstrate that your radical views  ( pathological jc's hate)  cannot be reasonnable for anyone that has some common sense. Trying to convince people im not a top player (im not saying im the best)  just makes you look stupid. And even more stupid if you are too scared to 1v1 me after .  Just relax, find a job, stop living the night and seek some sun light time to time.

peace

 

jc, silver player

[Stockfish]

On 12/31/2020 at 7:46 PM, Boudica said:

This reminds me of the thread where we voted for the best team player, the most overrated player etc. I don't want to be so negative about this, but I don't believe the ratings might be of any high value because:

• Medium players get affected a lot by the displayed ELO rating, and when they do the rating, a high-ELO player will get high-rated in all the categories (in other words, the winner takes it all). I realized this when people voted one of the best players as the best team player. If you take away the booming, multitasking and micro skill difference, there would be many more players that could win the category. Think players like Issh, who know about the team play.
• Typical players don't even remember how good others play. I realized this when I hid my rating in the game and some people I've been playing with for years started asking what my rating is. Hard to believe.
• You have to understand the game well to judge the gameplay well. But the good players already know other good players, so they might not consider it useful to rate them.

I'm now thinking, Stockfish, if this isn't about your teaching experience that you have this ambition to rate (grade) players like this.