Fair Ranks

FACT: Rank is an unreliable indicator of skill. The reasoning behind 'fair ranks' is flawed and those who push for fair ranks in CWs undermine AW's competitive scene.

Reason #1: With respect to upgrades rank 9+ is the same. This means that a rank 12 has no tangible advantage over a rank 10.

Reason #2: Even if I concede that SP correlates with skill (and it doesn't), adding up ranks to find equal teams still doesn't work. The reason for this is that the SP intervals between ranks are all different. Rank 9 is much farther away from rank 7 than rank 7 is from rank 5. So even if we assume greater SP correlates with greater skill...

Team A-
11
8
5

Is clearly not at all equal to

Team B-
8
8
8

Conclusion: We should drop this 'fair ranks' nonsense. AW's competitive scene is small enough that we know the general skill levels of players. The whole idea that fair ranks are necessary for a team game was created by Nateballer who as we all know is not of sound mind.

/rant over

I can understand your frustration with people not CWing due to the integer attached to a name, though maybe that's an indicator that the ranking system is currently broken?

Either way, 10/10 rant Acqu.

>Certified Natebro dot™ ---> .
ironic

but anyways I agree : )

I think the real thing is the person who plays the rank. Let me just throw this example out at you. Rank 10 Person A is OP and everyone knows it. Rank 10 Person B is not that good, scenario player.. The clan with the scenario player would ofcourse say no to playing in that CW that since person A is frequent 3v3 player. Obviously person B knows the fundamentals but that's not enough to even compete with a rank 7 that only plays 3v3s. This is not an opinion it's a fact.

But yes good post acqui.

Escrito por Mr_Own_U, 13.02.2014 at 19:02

I think the real thing is the person who plays the rank. Let me just throw this example out at you. Rank 10 Person A is OP and everyone knows it. Rank 10 Person B is not that good, scenario player.. The clan with the scenario player would ofcourse say no to playing in that CW that since person A is frequent 3v3 player. Obviously person B knows the fundamentals but that's not enough to even compete with a rank 7 that only plays 3v3s. This is not an opinion it's a fact.

But yes good post acqui.

I agree that rank 9 and higher aren't much different in terms of how their accounts act.

It would be hilarious if, in the future, everyone started adding up SP instead of ranks.

"CW? 998"
"Which 3?"
"insert three names"
"No, you have 40k SP above us"

No upgrades or strategy should balance all ranks but of course all of them should pass a basic test of knowing how to wall

Escrito por Guest, 13.02.2014 at 19:01

Acq gunning down fair rank nonsense


I may be a rank 9 but I can barely beat a rank 3! Ranks mean nothing!

Escrito por GOD 2.0, 13.02.2014 at 20:04

No upgrades or strategy should balance all ranks but of course all of them should pass a basic test of knowing how to wall

I dont know how to wall :*(

The rank 6 who sucks ass and can't reach Vienna with Infantry from Berlin should thus be played in CWs and relied on 3v3s.

m-i-rite?

So far we don't have a legitimate alternative to the ranking system in order to determine an individual player's skill level.

Elo isn't any more valid an indicator because of the fact that you could beat dozens of low rank players with 1000 Elo and have a solid 1200 at the end of it.

Reputation is worse.


The 2 other indicators besides rank are also invalid.

Escrito por Cpt.Magic, 13.02.2014 at 20:26

Escrito por GOD 2.0, 13.02.2014 at 20:04

No upgrades or strategy should balance all ranks but of course all of them should pass a basic test of knowing how to wall

I dont know how to wall :*(

This is why guys, people don't like UN.

Support all 9+ are the same. Before that, upgrades do matter.

Escrito por The Tactician, 14.02.2014 at 00:59

Support all 9+ are the same. Before that, upgrades do matter.

This.

The problem is that finding something to indicate true skill is practically impossible. And then the exact situation of the cw changes things again, because someone may be 2x as good with one country than with another.

Clans should have the right to refuse playing if they think they are unfairly disadvantaged in any way, and the clans who only play when they have a massive advantage usually end up collapsing anyway.

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.

Escrito por 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.

Escrito por Dr Lecter, 14.02.2014 at 11:35

Escrito por 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.

Escrito por Guest, 14.02.2014 at 11:38

Escrito por Dr Lecter, 14.02.2014 at 11:35

Escrito por 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.

How about this: A clan offers a set of players, the other clan agree's/disagree's disregarding rank only putting skill in mind accepting a reasonable offer. Sounds good?

Escrito por Dr Lecter, 14.02.2014 at 11:39

Escrito por Guest, 14.02.2014 at 11:38

Escrito por Dr Lecter, 14.02.2014 at 11:35

Escrito por Guest, 14.02.2014 at 10:33

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.

Bingo. And even when you base it off past experience, it is a matter of opinion at best which people will just disagree on.

Escrito por The Tactician, 14.02.2014 at 11:47

How about this: A clan offers a set of players, the other clan agree's/disagree's disregarding rank only putting skill in mind accepting a reasonable offer. Sounds good?

This is what I do right now.

We need a 3vs3 league (with a pinch hitter)!!

3V3 LEAGUE!!!!!!!!

Escrito por The Tactician, 14.02.2014 at 13:48

3V3 LEAGUE!!!!!!!!

We need unlimited CWs so people stop playing : )

>implying fair ranks is actually an argument that people believe in

the real issue comes down to moderation, in old days to get CW you would attack a clns credibility, troll them a little and eventually everyone would CW you. This is no longer valid due to strict moderation, and I am not attacking the idea of moderation as much as explaining what the underlying issue is for lack of competitiveness. In all cases RL and online there must be one of two things:

1: Monies(or really just something of value you win, with nothing to lose. Players IRL get paid even if they lose, albeit a short time if it keeps up hue) and all really competitive games hold tournaments with real cash for the prize. I know AW can't really do this, so that isn't valid.

2: Trolling(in RL, this applies for the fans or for players vanity) I for one spoke with some mods to be lenient on cln-to-cln trolling as it was vital for the competitive aspect of AW to continue, they didn't see it the way I did.

The reason CWP doesn't work for this is because people are scared to lose it, trophies are alright, people strive for them, but It's not great. If someone can solve this, then competitiveness will flourish.

Escrito por Guest, 14.02.2014 at 23:46

Escrito por Fruit, 14.02.2014 at 21:55

1: Monies(or really just something of value you win, with nothing to lose.

That is why I keep saying AW needs hats! Give people incentives and something to strive for n AW besides unit upgrades and a number/icon.

But I don't want hats ;_;

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 15.02.2014 at 10:15

As long you keep playing Bonker-Desu-Goblin vs Acquiesce-Skender-Laochra, nothing gonna change.

Bonker desu and goblin are not in the same clan.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 15.02.2014 at 10:15

...

SM recruited me when i was a r5, i cw'd when i was a r5. SM recruited Fock,Troops,Opulon,and Salayar as r6's which three of them still are. We just recruited Sultan If Swag (r5). We recruited Copenhagen who was kicked because of inactivity(r5). Saying we don't have low ranks, is not a true claim. Also, that Bonker-Goblin-Desu part is also 100% false. The last time they actually cw'd together was god knows when. I get the metaphor but: Every. Single. Person. In SM has CW'd, except our fresh recruits (2). Granted Stryko plays lots of cw's or BertanK does etc etc but that is because you need at least one reliable player on your lineup, that generally means he has a good east too. If we play with the same lineup twice in a row and its not a rematch, then you get to start the "same people cw'ing" argument. Troops joined and like a week or two later he CW'd. Saying we don't have low ranks, or we cw with the same people is wrong.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 15.02.2014 at 10:15

...

I record the teams of every CW my clan plays and only in 1 of 16 (versus Stalins Martians) did Acquiesce-Skender-Laochra play so please stop making things up.

Using SM as an example is terrible, actually they allow their members to play and learn in CWs, is really funny how you think of them elite, yet a year and a half ago they were deemed a 'poor' clan, funny how shit changes eh. Anyway back on topic:

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.

I agree with original post and have for the most part never refused cw based on 'rank', personnel yes rank no. I also think that most of the problem with competition is the familiarity factor, I would love to see things like duels and cw's done on an anonymous basis, basically your team want to cw, you join cw room with 3 members and face any other team that has 3 members, you don't know who they are until after the battle, that way any pre-planning or familiarity with moves etc will make improvising and creativity more valuable, more unpredictability more real skill.