Adog's Guide to Rankism :D

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 07.11.2014 at 16:14

Kirjoittanut Guest, 07.11.2014 at 02:08

Because if you don't know English very well you won't understand some arguments and your opponents won't understand some of yours.

Cool, then tell jared to go learn english, since he completery misunderstand my argument.

No, he didn't
Your argument is stupid

If i had to choose between a war veteran with many honors, and a boy that just enlisted into the army, who do you think i would choose to lead the military unit?

in martial arts a white belt won't be able to beat a black belt, unless he is EXTREMELY GOOD or the black belt its EXTREMELY BAD, but in a non-extreme scenario the black belt is gonna win. But again, if you were that good you wound't be a white belt in first place, and if you were that bad you wound't reach black belt

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 17:06

Your argument is stupid

Nice disqualifying my argument because I am stupid. Nice logic. Nice argumentation skills.

As for the rest of this threat

" Nice useless words" ~chill1812

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 07.11.2014 at 17:56

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 17:06

Your argument is stupid

Nice disqualifying my argument because I am stupid. Nice logic. Nice argumentation skills.

As for the rest of this threat

" Nice useless words" ~chill1812

You clearly have shitty english skills, i said " YOUR ARGUMENT". Not "YOU"
Wow, this is why we can't have nice things

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 07.11.2014 at 18:06

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 18:01

You clearly have shitty english skills, i said " YOUR ARGUMENT". Not "YOU"
Wow, this is why we can't have nice things

When a person do somenthing and you call his job stupid, you are calling himself stupid.

Since when rank mean experience? Since when rank show skills?

ok you learn by playing, but since when forum does not contain experience? Cant forum boost up your learning experience?

Since you are countering my argument with some noob comparions I should assume either you are in the side of adog or just came to this threat for troll me.

If the second part then I suggest you to stop replying and bringing this to off-topic.

why do you always assume people are trolling you? or that go off-topic? why do you think you are always right?
your conclusion has already been proven to be wrong, you are just ignoring it, we already had a discussion about ranks and you know how that turned out

In a debate, if you ignore a statement its because its true and you don't wanna admit it.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 19:59

In a debate, if you ignore a statement its because its true and you don't wanna admit it.

so true...

and sometimes they are off topic like when i say that your avatar is the ugliest one i've ever seen

>Tunder posts a argument, doesn't matter how good it is

>Clovis ignores

Kirjoittanut Guest, 08.11.2014 at 07:15

>Tunder posts a argument, doesn't matter how good it is

>Clovis ignores

Support

Nice flamewar, but adog op quotes

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 08:45

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 19:59

why do you always assume people are trolling you? or that go off-topic? why do you think you are always right?
your conclusion has already been proven to be wrong, you are just ignoring it, we already had a discussion about ranks and you know how that turned out

In a debate, if you ignore a statement its because its true and you don't wanna admit it.

So yeah, you post a comparion without express a point.

Then you come and say " I never say this".

Sorry, pick a side and pick it clearn. You say my argument is wrong? you havent even made an argument.

You call that comparion an argument? You didnt even related it to the point, nor got a conclusion related to the point. Therefore, it is incomplete.

I warned you. Next plz dont go and say " I didnt say this" or " I didnt agree to this". Since you are against me, I am assuming you are supporting all than adog say. Dont cover out.


I wont argue with you unless you learn how to express an opinion.

> Start talking trash about high ranks
> Ignore my argument refered from the start to rank 7 - 9
> Keep talking trash about high ranks
> Get raped out.

> Clarify that your high rank definition was mean to rank 8-10
> Ignore my statement, sayding that you never say rank 7 - 9 was low or middle rank.
> Keep talking trash
> Get the forum post locked.

Idk what the fuck you are talking about, everybody but you knows that i won the argument about high ranks vs low ranks, you said ranks didn't matter, if ranks don't matter why we don't see clans made out by ranks 1-5 defeating illyria or syndicate? The reason such clans don't exist is because ranks matter.

In this topic i support jaredbs argument, <the one that you couldn't read because you got butthurt.
I provided some examples that support his argument , while proving that your english skills are shit.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 11:42

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 08.11.2014 at 11:39

Idk what the fuck you are talking about, everybody but you knows that i won the argument about high ranks vs low ranks, you said ranks didn't matter, if ranks don't matter why we don't see clans made out by ranks 1-5 defeating illyria or syndicate? The reason such clans don't exist is because ranks matter.

In this topic i support jaredbs argument, <the one that you couldn't read because you got butthurt.
I provided some examples that support his argument , while proving that your english skills are shit.

No, what happened there is that when you had nonwhere to go, you clarify you was refering to rank 8-10 the whole time. You saw me refering all my post to rank 7-9 yet you prefer to ignore.

Why do you refer to ranks 7-9, and not 1-6? Rank doesn't matter after all?

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 11:42

Rank is nothing but an indicator of SP. It does not mean experience. A rank 6 that had played more than 500 games is better than a rank 9 that had played 50 games. In the same way a player who read forum is better than someone who doesnt.

Here is the problem clovis, the average rank 6 doesn't have 500 games and the average rank 9 doesn't have 50 games. Pointing out extremes and special cases is not gonna make the average low rank better than the average high rank.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 11:42

Yet you never grave a conclusion in your argument more than some comparions that are not even related to this.

You decided to ignore it: in the perfect scenario in which luck is set aside, the high rank is not a SP farmer and the low rank didn't had training by a high rank, the high rank will win.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 11:42

Adog say rank is a good indicator of skills and experience. What I say is: Rank is only an SP indicator.

You don't get SP for free, its a fact that most ranks 10 have nearly the same amount of turns played

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 11:42

Game played is a good indicator of experience.

Knowledge is a good indication of skills.

Go check, there is a direct relationship between turns played and rank: You get more knowledge by playing more turns, the more turns you play, the higher your rank.

1. Rank does not matter sure, but experience and skills does. If you as rank 10 had to face tophats (serious mode) in a alt rank 3 with no upgrades, who you think would win?

2. Sure those are extreme chases, but you can easy compare it to the real chases, as I am going to do in point 4.

3. Already answered in number 2. Also why you say " a high rank that is not an SP farmer", while also sayding " A low rank that didnt got trained?

Then you are specifing it to makes it in your chase. ok.

now I will put my own chase: If that high rank was Mellish or zizou, against a lowrank that read forums, who you think would win?

4. Nice fact pulling up from nonwhere and without evidence for back it. Now please let me attack it

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 08.11.2014 at 12:08

You don't get SP for free, its a fact that most ranks 10 have nearly the same amount of turns played

Go check, there is a direct relationship between turns played and rank: You get more knowledge by playing more turns, the more turns you play, the higher your rank.

Just for show you are wrong, I took the top 6 rank 10 by SP. I incluide turns and game played.

Player 1: legolas35.

Game played: 1,195
Turns played: 18,228

Played 2:hormigaatomica.

Game played: 6,438
Turns played: 68,195

Player 3: mscastro

Game played: 1,643
Turns played: 22,017

Player 4: Knez ULtRaS Rus

Game played: 3,388
Turns played: 29,371

Player 5: Stomach Ulcers

Game played: 2,510
Turns played: 30,652

Player 6: Tigro

Game played: 3,888
Turns played: 32,505


Others players:

Player x: Duel me

Game played: 4,134
Turns played: 41,338

Player y: The Kingmaker

Game played: 1,878
Turns played: 25,258

Player z: Comrade Jared

Game played: 1,668
Turns played: 20,876

Player P: Death1812

Game played: 3,740
Turns played: 37,631

Player Q: Witcher

Game played: 4,036
Turns played: 30,607

Player U: SQUARED

Game played: 2,076
Turns played: 27,689

Player W: El_General

Game played: 1784
Turns played: 32769

And of couse, the top 1 rank 11 by SP, and in my opinion, the best and strongest rank 11 in whole AtWar:

Player A: Pera

Game played: 4,334
Turns played: 42,192


The difference in the first group vary from 18K to 68K in turns played. However, only from 1k to 6k in game played. The nearest difference is found between top 1 rank 10 by SP and top 3, both with ~4K turns difference.

You can also find how goblin have more game played but Death have more SP and more turns played. Will you tell me than Death1812 is more experimented than goblin?



There you go the evidence. You are wrong. You made that fact without previous calculation.

There is a relation between experience and GAME PLAYED, not between experience and TURNS PLAYED. If you re-organize the players according to their game played, you will find a better and more accurancy graphic.

OH WAIT, Please take a look at your next possible reply:

1. I never say they were exact. I never specified the range of SP difference. Now I will specify it: Most of the players at rank 10 have at least 50K turns difference.

2. Noobs like hormi does not count.

3. People who play ancient like legolas does not count.

4. I disagree with the players you picked. They are all noobs. So I will pick my own group of players alterated in my own way so they agree with my fact.

5. Oh wait clovis I was agreeing with you all the time!!!! Games played are also taken into account and they are related with the experience.

WOOPS GG NO RE. Tipical you not specifying dates and trying to clarificating them at the end.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 13:32

Before you reply a flaming and pulled from nonwhere reply, let do the iron test:

Go and host 5 duels with default eu+ 10k 4 mins extra cities rules, and default victory conditions, but with upgrades and strategies disabled.

bring here an screenshot of you beating rank 6's in this type of game.

High ranks are so noob when they dont play with upgrades... that some players like laochra and lOrd ( if I remember right) made rank 3-4 account just for go dueling without upgrades. They dueled experienced players of couse. You can ask them their result, but I give you one hint: More than 90% of the high rank players lost.

r6 or 7 isn't that high

Kirjoittanut Guest, 08.11.2014 at 13:40

r6 or 7 isn't that high

Rank 9+ wont join unless noobs.

They are scared of playing without their loved advantage (Upgrades).

However, since he is trying to prove that rank matter, why no let him beat a rank 6 first? oh wait, can I choose which rank 6 to duel? So you can see what he is with no upgrades.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

1. Rank does not matter sure, but experience and skills does. If you as rank 10 had to face tophats (serious mode) in a alt rank 3 with no upgrades, who you think would win?

Tophats its higher rank, so its likely that he has more experience and will beat me, besides we are not talking about high ranks using alts, but real low ranks vs real high ranks.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

2. Sure those are extreme chases, but you can easy compare it to the real chases, as I am going to do in point 4.

You can't compare extremes with average.
only 5% of the people that get a gunshot to the head survive, that doesn't mean that gunshots to the head won't kill people.

"The American Association of Neurological Surgeons." AANS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014."

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

3. Already answered in number 2. Also why you say " a high rank that is not an SP farmer", while also sayding " A low rank that didnt got trained?

Then you are specifying it to makes it in your chase. ok.

now I will put my own chase: If that high rank was Mellish or zizou, against a lowrank that read forums, who you think would win?

This is the only way to make the game unbias.

We want to test the Knowledge of Player A and Player B, in X subject.
If Player A and Player B have the same knowledge in subject X, but Player A is being Tutor by somebody that has more knowledge than player B in subject X.
Which player do you think will perform better in subject X?

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

4. Nice fact pulling up from nonwhere and without evidence for back it. Now please let me attack it

Nice try Cherry Picking Data


Safari Has 23820 Turns Played
Che Guevara has 22713 Turns Played
(4%) Difference.


Zone has 15593 Turns Played
Lao has 24236 Turns Played
I have 25269 Turns Played
Plato has 28589 Turns Played
Khal has 27202 Turns Played
Bloacked has 21942 Turns Played

As you can see, in MOST cases, Turns played and SP are relative, extreme cases do exist but they are not enough cases to make significant impact on the data
The more you play, the more turns you have, the more turns you have the more experience youend up with.

The Rank 7 Premium with most SP barely has like 6000 turns played



any rank 10, has at least played atwar 3 times more than him. (others like me have played 4 times more)
and we are talking about a mid-rank about to become rank 8, lets see a rank 5



he is the rank 5 with most SP, and I have played atwar 10 times more than him, who do you think has more knowledge?


Bargain has 27587 Turns Played
Tigro has 32505 Turns played

before you say something stupid, you have to take in mind that some of this players play 1v1 more often than others, effectively inflating some of the data.
17% of differences between Trigro and Bargain, can be attributed to the fact that Trigo has played 100 more duels, this has effectively rise his turn count.
just like Hormiga has 600 duels, Duels and 1v1s do in fact affect the data drastically, but i yet have to find the specific reason for this. perhaps duels provide less sp than other types of games.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

Just for show you are wrong, I took the top 6 rank 10 by SP. I incluide turns and game played.

-DATA-

Nice, i never mentioned games played, i specifically said "Turns"
Hormiga duels too much, you can see his data is inflated.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

Others players:

-Random Ranks 10-

Good job taking random rank 10s, that have up to 20k in Difference of SP

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

There you go the evidence. You are wrong. You made that fact without previous calculation.

A fact its a fact, just because you try to interpret it in a different way, doesn't make it less of a fact.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

There is a relation between experience and GAME PLAYED, not between experience and TURNS PLAYED. If you re-organize the players according to their game played, you will find a better and more accurancy graphic.

Oh look, you admited experience can be mesure by the amount of games played.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

1. I never say they were exact. I never specified the range of SP difference. Now I will specify it: Most of the players at rank 10 have at least 50K turns difference.

No shit, genius.
I never said ALL high ranks have X amount of Turns

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

2. Noobs like hormi does not count.

I see no problem adding Hormi to the data, as i have stated before, extreme cases do exist, but they do not make a significant impact.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

3. People who play ancient like legolas does not count.

Nope, didn't even think about this

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

4. I disagree with the players you picked. They are all noobs. So I will pick my own group of players alterated in my own way so they agree with my fact.

You cherry picked the data, having up to 50k SP in difference is indeed a flaw that you anticipated but for some reason you didn't address

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

5. Oh wait clovis I was agreeing with you all the time!!!! Games played are also taken into account and they are related with the experience.

you just contradicted yourself, but i still disagree with your new conclusion.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

WOOPS GG NO RE. Tipical you not specifying dates and trying to clarificating them at the end.

What does that even mean? i am not gonna address every single specific detail, i will only address the ones that you mention or are needed to have progress in the debate.





This post took a heavy load of thinking, i expect a proper response, and not some random rant.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 13:32

Before you reply a flaming and pulled from nonwhere reply, let do the iron test:

Go and host 5 duels with default eu+ 10k 4 mins extra cities rules, and default victory conditions, but with upgrades and strategies disabled.

bring here an screenshot of you beating rank 6's in this type of game.

High ranks are so noob when they dont play with upgrades... that some players like laochra and lOrd ( if I remember right) made rank 3-4 account just for go dueling without upgrades. They dueled experienced players of couse. You can ask them their result, but I give you one hint: More than 90% of the high rank players lost.

What now? will your rank help you in no upgrade/strategy games? :D :D

You just said it yourself, HIGH RANKS PLAYING AS LOW RANKS.

Let me pick a random rank 1 from the begginers room, ill play vs him with no upgrades, and if he loses you delete your account. m'key?

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 08.11.2014 at 15:25

Let me pick a random rank 1 from the begginers room, ill play vs him with no upgrades, and if he loses you delete your account. m'key?

I will pick you a true rank 7 which I am sure have almost or equal knowledge than you.

You play him with no upgrades/strategies. Best of 3 and if you lose you will stop posting in forum again. Deal?

---

So you did what I just say eh?

•> First of all, words like "will" and "impossible" mean at least ~98%. I put this data arbitrary, but for my experience people used to say 99.99% since nothing is impossible in this life.

" You cant bring down the moon"

" You cant jump from a 88th flood with nothing more than your body and survive"

" You cannot make 1 + 1 to be equal to 3 without break the standart mathematical rules"

"You cannot make 1 AtWar infantry to defeath 100 infantry without exploit a bug"

And of couse, your not-even-related-to-AtWar argument:

" Only 5% of the people that get a gunshot to the head survive, that doesn't mean that gunshots to the head won't kill people."

Well we dont know if in the future this will be possible. Even if you makes all the specification that you want, there is a probability that will never be in your head, or mine, or probably, in nobody's head. Or even more probably, in someone's head that didnt reveal it to the public.

As for your not-even-related-to-AtWar argument, if I am part of that 5% of population, does it mean that I wont survive? Therefore, your argument is invalid for at least ~5% of the people. The correct word is "in most of the chases" or " More people will die than the ones which wont".


•> Yet you say " in MOST of the chases" that agrees with your argument about turns. Dont expect me to take your word "most" serious. You are sayding this expecting more than 90%, but if I prove that is less or more than 50%, you will clarify in the end:

•When I use the word Most, I was meaning 50.0000001% of the players. This of couse fit with the description of the word. Go back and learn english clovis , most mean mayority. •

•> Picking a true rank 1 that obvious have less knowledge than you. Totally ignoring my statement that experience and knowledge does matter.

•> Picked random rank 7 and 5 so they fit with your description. Nice try with:

"I will pick the rank 7 "PREMIUM" with most SP, since the top rank 7 by SP disagree with my fact. But oh look, the top rank 5 by SP is not premium but he agree with my fact. Let me pick him ".

•> Clarify in the end that duels and 1vs1 does matter. Therefore, you are blaming them now for the inflation.

•> Now you say I picked random rank 10. WELL THEY ARE THE TOP 5 RANK 10 BY SP. That is not random. I can pick the top rank 11, the top rank 12, the top rank 9 and ect, but you will also find irregularity there.

•> bumping from 48 and 49 ( Fer and safari) to 64 (zone) ?? .Yes and then you say I am the one picking random data. Good job your argument is incomplete. Bring the 50-63 players too, oh wait, you wont do it because they disagree with you

---

Since you are block quoting me, I am starting to delete some old unnecesary replies. You might want to start taking Screenshots of everything that I say so you dont " LOL clovis you say it and now you delete it".

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

I will pick you a true rank 7 which I am sure have almost or equal knowledge than you.

You play him with no upgrades/strategies. Best of 3 and if you lose you will stop posting in forum again. Deal?

In other words, you are gonna pick a rank 7 that was trained by High ranks.

---

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

So you did what I just say eh?

•> First of all, words like "will" and "impossible" mean at least ~98%. I put this data arbitrary, but for my experience people used to say 99.99% since nothing is impossible in this life.

" You cant bring down the moon"

" You cant jump from a 88th flood with nothing more than your body and survive"

" You cannot make 1 + 1 to be equal to 3 without break the standart mathematical rules"

"You cannot make 1 AtWar infantry to defeath 100 infantry without exploit a bug"

And of couse, your not-even-related-to-AtWar argument:

" Only 5% of the people that get a gunshot to the head survive, that doesn't mean that gunshots to the head won't kill people."

Wrong, impossible means that it can't happen. Congratulations, in showing us that you lack basic english skills.

Is impossible for a unmovable object to exist if a unstoppable object exists.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

Well we dont know if in the future this will be possible. Even if you makes all the specification that you want, there is a probability that will never be in your head, or mine, or probably, in nobody's head. Or even more probably, in someone's head that didnt reveal it to the public.

I was not stating if the bullet will ever be in your head, but that it is and you have 5% chances of survival.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

As for your not-even-related-to-AtWar argument, if I am part of that 5% of population, does it mean that I wont survive? Therefore, your argument is invalid for at least ~5% of the people. The correct word is "in most of the chases" or " More people will die than the ones which wont".

Wtf are you even talking about? I was just pointing out how extreme cases should not represent the average result. In this case a high rank defeating a low rank.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

•> Yet you say " in MOST of the chases" that agrees with your argument about turns. Dont expect me to take your word "most" serious. You are sayding this expecting more than 90%, but if I prove that is less or more than 50%, you will clarify in the end:

•When I use the word Most, I was meaning 50.0000001% of the players. This of couse fit with the description of the word. Go back and learn english clovis , most mean mayority. •

So what? You are saying that just because 1 high rank is bad, and 1 low rank is good, then most low ranks could beat high ranks, your argument is stupid and based on ignorance.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

•> Picking a true rank 1 that obvious have less knowledge than you. Totally ignoring my statement that experience and knowledge does matter.

This is an argument about ranks, either they matter or they don't. Your argument would only have a chance if we were debating at which degree rank matters, but we are not.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

•> Picked random rank 7 and 5 so they fit with your description. Nice try with:

"I will pick the rank 7 "PREMIUM" with most SP, since the top rank 7 by SP disagree with my fact. But oh look, the top rank 5 by SP is not premium but he agree with my fact. Let me pick him ".

Top rank 5 is premium, but even if he wasn't my fact is still a fact

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

•> Clarify in the end that duels and 1vs1 does matter. Therefore, you are blaming them now for the inflation.

Are you saying duels don't inflate the data?

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

•> Now you say I picked random rank 10. WELL THEY ARE THE TOP 5 RANK 10 BY SP. That is not random. I can pick the top rank 11, the top rank 12, the top rank 9 and ect, but you will also find irregularity there.

I didn't said those were random, if you knew how to read, you would have know that i was refering to your 2nd list in which you picked random high ranks with up to 50,000k in sp differences.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

•> bumping from 48 and 49 ( Fer and safari) to 64 (zone) ?? .Yes and then you say I am the one picking random data. Good job your argument is incomplete. Bring the 50-63 players too, oh wait, you wont do it because they disagree with you

I am comparing people that have similar amount of SP, they are not random at all.

---

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

Since you are block quoting me, I am starting to delete some old unnecesary replies. You might want to start taking Screenshots of everything that I say so you dont " LOL clovis you say it and now you delete it".

In other words, you know you are full of shit, and don't want me to call you out.

I will assume that you agree with the statements that you ignored.
Just for the record: are you retarded? Because if you were, that would explain why you believe that its possible for 1 + 1 to be 3 in the future.

Thunder, you had failed providing us proof. And what is more, you are starting to insult me. Nice bad words are you by any chance trying to get this locked?

I provide you the proof. I didnt choosed it. I just went to the players tab and search for the top 5 rank 10 players by SP. Yet you see how in your own statics you skipped over 20 players.

Why you skipped the players from 50 to 63? Why didnt you incluide players from 70?

You didnt because The Communist (50) and Stryko (51) cleary goes against your "fact". In the other side you didnt incluide Mortals (63) or bluecher2 (70) .You only want to show what you want, why no show it completely? Because you know you are wrong, but dont want nobody to see: You are excluiding all the fails on purpose.

Nice censore on your own argument. Nice manipulation of statics.

Anyway, I am done with you.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 08.11.2014 at 07:15

>Tunder posts a argument, doesn't matter how good it is

>Clovis ignores

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 08.11.2014 at 20:00

Kirjoittanut Guest, 08.11.2014 at 07:15

>Tunder posts a argument, doesn't matter how good it is

>Clovis ignores

2nd time it seems.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 19:58

Thunder, you had failed providing us proof. And what is more, you are starting to insult me. Nice bad words are you by any chance trying to get this locked?

I provide you the proof. I didnt choosed it. I just went to the players tab and search for the top 5 rank 10 players by SP. Yet you see how in your own statics you skipped over 20 players.

Why you skipped the players from 50 to 63? Why didnt you incluide players from 70?

You didnt because The Communist (50) and Stryko (51) cleary goes against your "fact". In the other side you didnt incluide Mortals (63) or bluecher2 (70) .You only want to show what you want, why no show it completely? Because you know you are wrong, but dont want nobody to see: You are excluiding all the fails on purpose.

Nice censore on your own argument. Nice manipulation of statics.

Anyway, I am done with you.

Nice stealth edit.

I am not adding non-premium players, in order to have a limited set of variables.
When i have the time, i will post a error bar, with the average set of turns each rank has.

You failed to understand my reponse, i already said twice that i was referring to your 2nd list

Since I am done with you I am just going to laugh at your logic.

" I am going to do a fact because I think clovis is too lazy for research and prove."

"OMG FUCK YOU CLOVIS, NOW YOU SHOWED US THAN I AM WRONG. Oh wait, there is a group of players catalogated as "Others players". But since I think people are too stupid for read I am going to say they are random players. I AM A GENIUS! now people will think it was his fault and I am too pro"

" Yuo genius! Let run into debts together" - Greeceball about your statement.

" Why clovis say rank does not matter? Well It wouldnt be strange so I am going to lead this to extremes by scarecrowing that he state " Low rank will beat high rank in most of the chases". Good! Now I feel more genius!"

" REMOVE KEBAB">>> - Serbianball about your statement.

" No premium? Well since they dont get 10% SP discount and they usually dont have for buy SP boost, I think they are not a very good group for incluide in my data. Anyway clovis already proves mscastro (42) and The communist (50, now 48) to disagree with my state. So I am simply removing them from my data! So I dont have to justify why they vary too much. ANYWAY, WHO CARES ABOUT NON PREMIUM"

" I agree. Nobody cares about poor people so let ignore them." - USAball about your statement"

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

1. Rank does not matter sure, but experience and skills does.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 11:42

Game played is a good indicator of experience.

based on your claim, rank does matter, because higher ranks have played more games and therefore have more experience.

---

At this point, it has already been establish that rank DOES MATTER, I would like to point out that turns played are more accurate than games played because:

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 08.11.2014 at 12:08

there is a direct relationship between turns played and rank

You haven't disproved my claim, you are merely trying to talk your wait out of it by accusing me of manipulating data.

As you can see in the info below, Turns played has indeed a direct relationship with ranks.

The rank 10 with the least turns played, is Dennis777 with 11,078 Turns.
The rank 6 with most sp (Yoba), has played 3,514 Turns, the next premium rank 6 in line has 3933 Turns.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 09.11.2014 at 17:17

" Why clovis say rank does not matter? Well It wouldnt be strange so I am going to lead this to extremes by scarecrowing that he state " Low rank will beat high rank in most of the chases". Good! Now I feel more genius!"

So far, you haven't proved that rank doesn't matter, you have actually contradicted yourself multiple times, and you try to point out extreme cases that are limited to only a few of the high ranks.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 09.11.2014 at 17:17

Since I am done with you I am just going to laugh at your logic.

" I am going to do a fact because I think clovis is too lazy for research and prove."

Facts are true statements, you can't disprove a fact, idiot.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 09.11.2014 at 17:17

"OMG FUCK YOU CLOVIS, NOW YOU SHOWED US THAN I AM WRONG. Oh wait, there is a group of players catalogated as "Others players". But since I think people are too stupid for read I am going to say they are random players. I AM A GENIUS! now people will think it was his fault and I am too pro"

Ok, clovis plz tell us, how did you choose the list of "other players", did you happen to pick them for anything besides being rank 10? if no, then my statement is still true: you picked random ranks 10.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 12:59

" No premium? Well since they dont get 10% SP discount and they usually dont have for buy SP boost, I think they are not a very good group for incluide in my data. Anyway clovis already proves mscastro (42) and The communist (50, now 48) to disagree with my state. So I am simply removing them from my data! So I dont have to justify why they vary too much. ANYWAY, WHO CARES ABOUT NON PREMIUM"

This is basic knowledge dude, when you perform an experiment, is essential to have the least amount of variables, in order to have an accurate result.

> Clovi's Logic: "Let me test how light effects plant growth, Plant A will be place in a cold environment with water and no light, Plant B will be place in a hot environment with no water, and light. OMG NONE OF THE PLANTS GREW, THEREFORE LIGHT DOESN'T AFFECT PLANT GROWTH"

Ok from what i've read you both say nearly the same thing but are to busy arguing with each other

1. yes rank shows a basic level of understanding sure there are cases where a r5 can kill r10 or whatever but on average it doesn't happen (sure it can happen and whatever but on AVERAGE it doesn't

2. alts yes a low ranked alt of a higher rank can kill a high rank player usually the higher rank will do something stupid expecting the alt to be just another low rank noob and dies funny to see but this ain't what where talking about

3. we are talking about senario games arn't we? so who cares about 1v1's ect the main issue is the r3-6's and some r7's who pick say russia in a ww1 senario vs a r10 prussia or something of course this obviously on average wouldn't end well just keep both teams as balanced as possible if the game is all r5-7 and like 2 r10+ have the higher ranks in countries at direct oposition to eachother and the lower ranks around them thus making the game as balanced as possible, same can work in 3v3 you have 4r5's and 2 r10's in a game have the r10's play east and the 4 r5's battle it out in the west, makes for the most balanced game possible without just kicking people for there rank

> Pyrrhus was rank 8 (now rank 9)
> I am rank 11
> I have a score of 0 win 5 loses against him in The War to end all Wars.

And yes this happen because there was no crybaby sayding "OMG Rank 11 he will kill us... please kick the rank 9".

OH WAIT BTW:

The Kingmaker: That is an extremery chase. All that contradict me is an extreme chase.

The Kingmaker: Inflation? It can go up to 99% and fuck it because I dont care as long as my state is true. All that contradict me = Inflation.

The Kingmaker: omg clovis specify they are other players. But I dont want to prove that my claim was obvious so I will still keep sayding " You choose random ranks" and fuck it because is the same as he say, but in my own words.

The Kingmaker: Clovis say game is a good indicator. Since I never went to school and I know nothing about probability I will just put his "good" definition as a 100% true. In this way I can easy scarecrow him again! hell yeah!

The Kingmaker: Oh wait, I am going to make an experiment about how many people in Haiti earn enough money for buy a car. But since I want to prove they are rich, I will remove all the poor people in orden to have more " accurate" results. Yes!! Now I will prove somenthing!!!

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 08:12

> Pyrrhus was rank 8 (now rank 9)
> I am rank 11
> I have a score of 0 win 5 loses against him in The War to end all Wars.

And yes this happen because there was no crybaby sayding "OMG Rank 11 he will kill us... please kick the rank 9".

First of all, that is the worst example ever.
The war to end all wars is a team game, and its unbalanced.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 08:12

The Kingmaker: That is an extremery chase. All that contradict me is an extreme chase.

Thanks for repeating my statement, basing your argument in extreme cases is a fallacy.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 08:12

The Kingmaker: Inflation? It can go up to 99% and fuck it because I dont care as long as my state is true.

Plz quote me on this, i never said such a thing

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 08:12

The Kingmaker: omg clovis specify they are other players. But I dont want to prove that my claim was obvious so I will still keep sayding " You choose random ranks" and fuck it because is the same as he say, but in my own words.

Then tell me, why did you ignored my question?
What criteria did they meet, besides being rank 10?

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 08:12

The Kingmaker: Clovis say game is a good indicator. Since I never went to school and I know nothing about probability I will just put his "good" definition as a 100% true. In this way I can easy scarecrow him again! hell yeah!

You contradicted yourself, discrediting me won't change that.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 08:12

The Kingmaker: Oh wait, I am going to make an experiment about how many people in Haiti earn enough money for buy a car. But since I want to prove they are rich, I will remove all the poor people in orden to have more " accurate" results. Yes!! Now I will prove somenthing!!!

No, you just don't wanna admit that you don't know how to make a proper experiment.

In this "haiti" experiment i would remove people that don't earn money (aka unemployed, children, housewives and elderly). Clovis: "omg tunder you removed children, you are manipulating data!"

---

So are you ever gonna try to challenge my claim? Or are you just gonna make dump comments that contribute nothing?

Why would I response to your claim? I asked you long ago to do the iron test and bring there the wins against low ranks, yet you prefer to modificate on your own. We are talking about how rank matter.

Your opinion is that rank show skills and experience. There is a relation between turns and rank. Everybody who play's RP or disagree with your fact ( like Mellish) is "Inflation".

My opinion is than rank only show amount of SP. There is a relation between game played and knowledge.

Check this so you can learn to clarificate correctly: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=16411

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 09:27

Why would I response to your claim? I asked you long ago to do the iron test and bring there the wins against low ranks, yet you prefer to modificate on your own.

Check this so you can learn to clarificate correctly: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=16411

The argument is: does rank matter? Yes or no.

The fact that is more likely for a high rank to win, means it does.

You even said high ranks have more games than low ranks, i said high ranks have more turns played and give you concrete evidence.

You are ignoring my statements, because you know that if one of them is true, your entire argument collapses on its own.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 09:27

Your opinion is that rank show skills and experience. There is a relation between turns and rank. Everybody who play's RP or disagree with your fact ( like Mellish) is "Inflation".

My opinion is than rank only show amount of SP. There is a relation between game played and knowledge.

Lies, i never said skill is related to ranks.

I said: there is a relationship between experience and turns played, there is a relationship between turns played and rank, therefore rank is a good indicator of experience. While agreeing that some exceptions exist.


If you take a test on subject X, and you score high is because you know Subject X, yet somebody could have cheated on the test, or somebody who knew well about the subject fell asleep and failed.
That doesn't mean the statement is false.

Kirjoittanut Professor Adog, 02.10.2014 at 13:18

"Rank doesn't mean anything" - No but it's a good indicator, if you've done economics, Nominal GDP is an indicator of economic growth. Of course there are shit high ranks but that is like inflation (rank inflation from playing RP or other farming ) and so it does not show Real GDP, i.e. real economic growth or real skill. Ranks show skill, because of experience, "The only source of knowledge is experience." ~ Albert Einstein.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 09:37

Lies, i never said skill is related to ranks.

Oh fuck you man, Now you see why I asked you for clarify if you support all that adog say?

You are arguing about somenthing you dont even know.

> Asked for clarify your statements
> Ignore and calling me troll for think that you are going off-topic or just here for the solery purpose of trolling me

Argument invalid. You lose, thunder.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 19:59

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 07.11.2014 at 18:06

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 18:01

You clearly have shitty english skills, i said " YOUR ARGUMENT". Not "YOU"
Wow, this is why we can't have nice things

When a person do somenthing and you call his job stupid, you are calling himself stupid.

Since when rank mean experience? Since when rank show skills?

ok you learn by playing, but since when forum does not contain experience? Cant forum boost up your learning experience?

Since you are countering my argument with some noob comparions I should assume either you are in the side of adog or just came to this threat for troll me.

If the second part then I suggest you to stop replying and bringing this to off-topic.

why do you always assume people are trolling you? or that go off-topic? why do you think you are always right?
your conclusion has already been proven to be wrong, you are just ignoring it, we already had a discussion about ranks and you know how that turned out

In a debate, if you ignore a statement its because its true and you don't wanna admit it.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 09:43

Kirjoittanut Professor Adog, 02.10.2014 at 13:18

"Rank doesn't mean anything" - No but it's a good indicator, if you've done economics, Nominal GDP is an indicator of economic growth. Of course there are shit high ranks but that is like inflation (rank inflation from playing RP or other farming ) and so it does not show Real GDP, i.e. real economic growth or real skill. Ranks show skill, because of experience, "The only source of knowledge is experience." ~ Albert Einstein.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 09:37

Lies, i never said skill is related to ranks.

Oh fuck you man, Now you see why I asked you for clarify if you support all that adog say?

You are arguing about somenthing you dont even know.

> Asked for clarify your statements
> Ignore and calling me troll for think that you are going off-topic or just here for the solery purpose of trolling me

Argument invalid. You lose, thunder.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 19:59

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 07.11.2014 at 18:06

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.11.2014 at 18:01

You clearly have shitty english skills, i said " YOUR ARGUMENT". Not "YOU"
Wow, this is why we can't have nice things

When a person do somenthing and you call his job stupid, you are calling himself stupid.

Since when rank mean experience? Since when rank show skills?

ok you learn by playing, but since when forum does not contain experience? Cant forum boost up your learning experience?

Since you are countering my argument with some noob comparions I should assume either you are in the side of adog or just came to this threat for troll me.

If the second part then I suggest you to stop replying and bringing this to off-topic.

why do you always assume people are trolling you? or that go off-topic? why do you think you are always right?
your conclusion has already been proven to be wrong, you are just ignoring it, we already had a discussion about ranks and you know how that turned out

In a debate, if you ignore a statement its because its true and you don't wanna admit it.

How is my argument invalid? Just because somebody else added skill among the reasons of why rank matters, doesn't mean MY REASONS are wrong.

If you read properly, he said skills is related to experience. And experience to ranks.
While i said: experience is related to turns played, and turns played to ranks.

You have ignored half of my statements and questions. Is clear that you know you are wrong, but can't admit it.

YOU SAID THAT GAMES PLAYED ARE A GOOD WAY TO MESURE EXPERIENCE.
HIGH RANKS HAVE MORE GAMES THAN LOW RANKS
THEREFORE HIGH RANKS HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE
THEREFORE RANK MATTERS.