So I guess I don't quite understand how board rankings are calculated.  At least on this board the ranking doesn't make sense to me.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Torus/Rankings

I realize this isn't a highly played board, but I'm wondering how someone who has played 3 games and won only 2 (67%) is the top ranked player, when there are seven players with 100% win rates.

The highest ranked player has a board score 70 points higher than the closest player with a 100% win rate and almost 100 points more than I do with a 4 for 4 win rate (the highest number of undefeated wins on the board).

It's partly sour grapes on my part, but its also a genuine lack of understanding of how the ranking could work this way.

Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated

Thanks all!

Mad Bomber wrote:

..playing 2 and 3 player games is more skill......playing 6 or 7 seven player games is more luck/garbage..........

Nonetheless, there is more value to winning games with more players.   Note that with your Global Score, it matters who you've played against.  With H-Rating, it's a pure numbers game - I.e., how many people you've played and how many were in each game.

Ceggon wrote:

So I guess I don't quite understand how board rankings are calculated.  At least on this board the ranking doesn't make sense to me.

 

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Torus/Rankings

 

I realize this isn't a highly played board, but I'm wondering how someone who has played 3 games and won only 2 (67%) is the top ranked player, when there are seven players with 100% win rates.

 

The highest ranked player has a board score 70 points higher than the closest player with a 100% win rate and almost 100 points more than I do with a 4 for 4 win rate (the highest number of undefeated wins on the board).

 

It's partly sour grapes on my part, but its also a genuine lack of understanding of how the ranking could work this way.

 

Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated

 

Thanks all!

 

So to answer OP's question:

- Rankings calculation is here: http://www.wargear.net/help/display/Rankings

- You've won 4 two-player games where you picked up roughly 20 pts. per game (80 pts.).

Mad Bomber won 2 six-player games where he picked up ~ 95 pts. per game (190 pts.).  He lost another one so went down ~20 pts.  He's still ~100 pts. ahead of you because of that reason.

Another great example is Lieuil; he's only played 200-something games but since most of the games he plays are massively big he's shot up to the #1 spot in the Global Ranking System.

Hope that helps you understand

Another great example is "Luieuil"....

You missed a letter or two in there.

Thanks Attilla, thats the insight I was looking for.  Much appreciated.

And I don't even know what to say about Mad Bomber's posts in this thread.... lay off the crack perhaps??  I think you might have had a good point in all that rambling, but who's to say.

In his defense, it was posted late at night...so maybe he'd been hittin' a lil bit of grandpa's sauce??  Surfers do have a tendency to enjoy the sauce.  Right MB??? 

His point is well taken though:  He might have only won 2 games, but recognize he won them against a LOT more players, so those wins are worth more...and should be.  Because you've got a 50/50 chance of winning a head to head game (assuming equal skill), but to beat 5 players in a 6 player game is considerably more difficult.

Yeah I chalked up MB's posts to a little after-party Wargear :)  We've all been there...

Don't smoke an surf guys!