Player Rank Density In Alpha.
Purpose of the thread:
To find out what the average rank in Alpha is.
To find the average rank I took 50 screenshots of 16 player games, Not counting my self this is 15 players per screenshot. Giving me a total sample size of 750 players, a sample of 1,000 is the go to standard for large group data collections.
I counted the number of ranks in each screenshot manually.
The screenshots can be found here: http://s1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/
And here is the Ranks and their needed EXP:http://crossfire.z8games.com/guide_ranking_soldiers.aspx
The Data: In order of (Rank ID) (Rank Name) (Number of players with that rank)
1. Trainee. 24
2. Private. 10
3. PFC. 6
4. Corporal. 15
5. Sergeant. 135
6. Staff S. 172
7. SFC. 109
8. Master S. 95
9. Second LT. 109
10. First LT. 51
11. Captain. 13
12. Major. 8
13. LT Colonel. 1
14. Colonel. 1
15. Other. 1
In Bell Graph form:
The majority (68%) have the ranks between Sergeant-Master Sergeant.
The lack of players with less then sergeant rank can be explained by Rookie Server.
Most low rank players would be playing there. The Cap for Rookie server is Sergeant, which is why there are so many more sergeants then Private-Corporal.
Rank List and number of days it takes to reach at 2,000 EXP a day:
(Rank ID) (Rank Name) (Number of days needed at 2,000 EXP a day)
1. Trainee. 1
2. Private.1
3. PFC. 1
4. Corporal. 2
5. Sergeant. 3
6. Staff S. 9
7. SFC. 40
8. Master S. 88
9. Second LT. 164
10. First LT. 385
11. Captain. 667
12. Major. 1,029
13. LT Colonel. 1,732
14. Colonel. 2,659
In graph form:
Average number of days the average player has played: 97 days.
How I got 97 days.
(Number of players with rank)*(amount of days needed for rank)=(total days from those players)
1. Trainee. 24*1=24
2. Private. 10 *1=10
3. PFC. 6*1=6
4. Corporal. 15*2=30
5. Sergeant. 135*3=405
6. Staff S. 172*9=1,548
7. SFC. 109*40=4360
8. Master S. 95*88=8,360
9. Second LT. 109*164=17,876
10. First LT. 51*385=19,635
11. Captain. 13*667=8,671
12. Major. 8*1,029=8,232
13. LT Colonel. 1*1,732=1,732
14. Colonel. 1*2659=2,659
(All Totals added together)/(Number of sample players)
72,548/750=96.73(rounded up, 97)
Ping percent in Ranks:
I separate the ranks from each other and review the screenshots again to find the Pings of the players with the ranks and record them in 1 of 4 categories. Doing ranks Sergeant-First LT.
Total Player sample: 620.
0-50 Pings: 91
51-100 Pings: 128
101-150 Pings: 173
150+ Pings: 228
Chart:
Sergeant Data: Total, 135.
0-50 Ping: 6
51-100 Ping: 7
101-150 Ping: 41
150+ Ping: 81
Chart:
Staff Sergeant Data: Total, 172.
0-50 Ping: 10
51-100 Ping: 16
101-150 Ping: 43
150+ Ping: 103
Chart:
SFC Date: Total, 109.
0-50 Ping: 15
51-100 Ping: 24
101-150 Ping: 29
150+ Ping: 41
Chart:
Master Sergeant Data: Total, 95.
0-50 Ping: 19
51-100 Ping: 24
101-150 Ping: 33
150+ Ping: 21
Chart:
Second LT Data: Total, 109.
0-50 Ping: 28
51-100 Ping: 43
101-150 Ping: 21
150+ Ping: 17
Chart:
First LT Data: Total, 51.
0-50 Ping: 13
51-100 Ping: 24
101-150 Ping: 6
150+ Ping: 8
Chart:
Conclusion so far:
Low pings make a bigger percent in the higher ranks, well high pings make a bigger percent in the lower ranks. Even tho High pings take up about 66% of the sample, they only make up 25%-33% of the players at the high ranks.
By now many of you are wondering why I would take 50 Screenshots of games, recorded all 750 players into categories based of Rank, and finally separate the ranks into sub-categories based on ping.
The answer: I noticed a interesting pattern well reviewing 5 months of screenshots of my scores in game. That pattern was that in nearly every one of the screenshots, the average rank was Staff Sergeant-SFC.
Why is this significant?
7 months ago last June, High ping player became the majority of in game players in Alpha.
That was more then 200 days ago.
According to this chart:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/Daysgraph.png
In 200 days of getting 2,000 EXP a day (about 10 games a day), one would be in the Second LT ranks.
So the question on my mind was "Why isn't there more Second LT's?".
First, to eliminate the chance that I was simply choosing game modes that rarely had Second LT's and up, I started by collecting 50 random screenshots of 16 player games.
All games modes except ZM being included. (TDM, FFA, SND, GM, EM, ESC, MM, and HM).
A total of 750 players recorded.
The data in chart form:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/RankDataGraph.png
109 Second LT's recorded. (14.3% of 750 players)
More then I was expecting from the data in my score screenshots, but less then what I was expecting based on the the rank/day chart and how old the game is.
Next I reviewed the pings of the recorded players to see who was the majority.
Chart: (Note: there is a error in this chart, I forgot to include the 51 First LT's entirely. It only list Sergeants-Second LT's.).
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/PlayersamplePiechart.png
228 of 620 players have 150+ ping (36.7%) and 173 out of 620 players have 100-150 ping (27.9%). A total of 401 out of 620 (64.6%).
High pings are still the majority in game since June.
Now to compare this to the Second LT chart.
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/SecondLTpiechart.png
Out of 109 Second LT's, 17 have 150+ ping (15.5%) and 21 have 101-150 ping (19.2%), a total of 38 with high ping (34.8%).
This data just confused me more.
64% of the sample has 100+ ping (Expected) but only 34% of the Second LT's have 100+ ping (Unexpected). I was expecting high pings to make the majority of high rank players since they have been the majority of players for 7 months now.
Compared to the lower ranks, Like Staff Sergeant:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/StaffSegeantPiechart.png
103 have 150+ ping (59.8%) and 43 have 101-150 Ping (25%), a total of 146 with 100+ ping (84.8%).
At the low ranks, high pings are out numbering low pings by 5 to 1 but at the high ranks the low pings out number high pings by 2 to 1. This is very unexpected.
What would cause such event like this?
Refer back to the rank/day chart:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/Daysgraph.png
Staff Sergeant takes 9 days average to reach.
Master sergeant takes 88 days to reach.
It is at Master Sergeant that Low pings start becoming a bigger percentage of players:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/MasterSergeantPiechart.png
Low ping players quit in mass last June for a number of reasons.
But new low ping players still continued coming in. This shows on Master Sergeant and Second LT, where Low pings make a big percent of the players in those ranks and up.
For some reason, something is stopping high ping players from reaching High ranks but Low ping players continue ranking up with out difficulty.
What would cause this?
High ping players are getting banned before they ever reach Second LT.
It makes sense, if a high ping player keeps getting banned at the low ranks they stay at he low ranks. But since very few make it to the high ranks, this suggest that the majority of them are getting banned.
So what percent are getting banned regularly?
High pings make up 401 of 620 (64.6%) of my sample between Sergeant-Second LT. 38 of the 401 High pings made it to Second LT or 9.4% of the high ping players.
90.6% of high ping players don't make it to Second LT.
Low ping players by contrast have 219 out of 620 (35.3%), and 71 out of 219 (32.4%) are Second LTs.
71 out of 109 (65.13%) Second LTs are low ping players. The percent of low pings in any rank should be around 35% but is reaching the 60s and higher in the high ranks.
If the 9.4% of High ping Second LTs are all that made it to Second Lt from since last June. Then the other 90.6% stopped playing for some reason before reaching Second LT (usually only mass bans hit these percentages).
So with knowing that 90.6% of high pings will not continue to increase in rank to the high ranks.
That is 58.52% (90.6%*64.6%) of the player base getting stopped before Second LT.
(Edited because I noticed several math errors)
To find out what the average rank in Alpha is.
To find the average rank I took 50 screenshots of 16 player games, Not counting my self this is 15 players per screenshot. Giving me a total sample size of 750 players, a sample of 1,000 is the go to standard for large group data collections.
I counted the number of ranks in each screenshot manually.
The screenshots can be found here: http://s1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/
And here is the Ranks and their needed EXP:http://crossfire.z8games.com/guide_ranking_soldiers.aspx
The Data: In order of (Rank ID) (Rank Name) (Number of players with that rank)
1. Trainee. 24
2. Private. 10
3. PFC. 6
4. Corporal. 15
5. Sergeant. 135
6. Staff S. 172
7. SFC. 109
8. Master S. 95
9. Second LT. 109
10. First LT. 51
11. Captain. 13
12. Major. 8
13. LT Colonel. 1
14. Colonel. 1
15. Other. 1
In Bell Graph form:
The majority (68%) have the ranks between Sergeant-Master Sergeant.
The lack of players with less then sergeant rank can be explained by Rookie Server.
Most low rank players would be playing there. The Cap for Rookie server is Sergeant, which is why there are so many more sergeants then Private-Corporal.
Rank List and number of days it takes to reach at 2,000 EXP a day:
(Rank ID) (Rank Name) (Number of days needed at 2,000 EXP a day)
1. Trainee. 1
2. Private.1
3. PFC. 1
4. Corporal. 2
5. Sergeant. 3
6. Staff S. 9
7. SFC. 40
8. Master S. 88
9. Second LT. 164
10. First LT. 385
11. Captain. 667
12. Major. 1,029
13. LT Colonel. 1,732
14. Colonel. 2,659
In graph form:
Average number of days the average player has played: 97 days.
How I got 97 days.
(Number of players with rank)*(amount of days needed for rank)=(total days from those players)
1. Trainee. 24*1=24
2. Private. 10 *1=10
3. PFC. 6*1=6
4. Corporal. 15*2=30
5. Sergeant. 135*3=405
6. Staff S. 172*9=1,548
7. SFC. 109*40=4360
8. Master S. 95*88=8,360
9. Second LT. 109*164=17,876
10. First LT. 51*385=19,635
11. Captain. 13*667=8,671
12. Major. 8*1,029=8,232
13. LT Colonel. 1*1,732=1,732
14. Colonel. 1*2659=2,659
(All Totals added together)/(Number of sample players)
72,548/750=96.73(rounded up, 97)
Ping percent in Ranks:
I separate the ranks from each other and review the screenshots again to find the Pings of the players with the ranks and record them in 1 of 4 categories. Doing ranks Sergeant-First LT.
Total Player sample: 620.
0-50 Pings: 91
51-100 Pings: 128
101-150 Pings: 173
150+ Pings: 228
Chart:
Sergeant Data: Total, 135.
0-50 Ping: 6
51-100 Ping: 7
101-150 Ping: 41
150+ Ping: 81
Chart:
Staff Sergeant Data: Total, 172.
0-50 Ping: 10
51-100 Ping: 16
101-150 Ping: 43
150+ Ping: 103
Chart:
SFC Date: Total, 109.
0-50 Ping: 15
51-100 Ping: 24
101-150 Ping: 29
150+ Ping: 41
Chart:
Master Sergeant Data: Total, 95.
0-50 Ping: 19
51-100 Ping: 24
101-150 Ping: 33
150+ Ping: 21
Chart:
Second LT Data: Total, 109.
0-50 Ping: 28
51-100 Ping: 43
101-150 Ping: 21
150+ Ping: 17
Chart:
First LT Data: Total, 51.
0-50 Ping: 13
51-100 Ping: 24
101-150 Ping: 6
150+ Ping: 8
Chart:
Conclusion so far:
Low pings make a bigger percent in the higher ranks, well high pings make a bigger percent in the lower ranks. Even tho High pings take up about 66% of the sample, they only make up 25%-33% of the players at the high ranks.
By now many of you are wondering why I would take 50 Screenshots of games, recorded all 750 players into categories based of Rank, and finally separate the ranks into sub-categories based on ping.
The answer: I noticed a interesting pattern well reviewing 5 months of screenshots of my scores in game. That pattern was that in nearly every one of the screenshots, the average rank was Staff Sergeant-SFC.
Why is this significant?
7 months ago last June, High ping player became the majority of in game players in Alpha.
That was more then 200 days ago.
According to this chart:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/Daysgraph.png
In 200 days of getting 2,000 EXP a day (about 10 games a day), one would be in the Second LT ranks.
So the question on my mind was "Why isn't there more Second LT's?".
First, to eliminate the chance that I was simply choosing game modes that rarely had Second LT's and up, I started by collecting 50 random screenshots of 16 player games.
All games modes except ZM being included. (TDM, FFA, SND, GM, EM, ESC, MM, and HM).
A total of 750 players recorded.
The data in chart form:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/RankDataGraph.png
109 Second LT's recorded. (14.3% of 750 players)
More then I was expecting from the data in my score screenshots, but less then what I was expecting based on the the rank/day chart and how old the game is.
Next I reviewed the pings of the recorded players to see who was the majority.
Chart: (Note: there is a error in this chart, I forgot to include the 51 First LT's entirely. It only list Sergeants-Second LT's.).
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/PlayersamplePiechart.png
228 of 620 players have 150+ ping (36.7%) and 173 out of 620 players have 100-150 ping (27.9%). A total of 401 out of 620 (64.6%).
High pings are still the majority in game since June.
Now to compare this to the Second LT chart.
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/SecondLTpiechart.png
Out of 109 Second LT's, 17 have 150+ ping (15.5%) and 21 have 101-150 ping (19.2%), a total of 38 with high ping (34.8%).
This data just confused me more.
64% of the sample has 100+ ping (Expected) but only 34% of the Second LT's have 100+ ping (Unexpected). I was expecting high pings to make the majority of high rank players since they have been the majority of players for 7 months now.
Compared to the lower ranks, Like Staff Sergeant:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/StaffSegeantPiechart.png
103 have 150+ ping (59.8%) and 43 have 101-150 Ping (25%), a total of 146 with 100+ ping (84.8%).
At the low ranks, high pings are out numbering low pings by 5 to 1 but at the high ranks the low pings out number high pings by 2 to 1. This is very unexpected.
What would cause such event like this?
Refer back to the rank/day chart:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/Daysgraph.png
Staff Sergeant takes 9 days average to reach.
Master sergeant takes 88 days to reach.
It is at Master Sergeant that Low pings start becoming a bigger percentage of players:
http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u376/VATAV/Rank%20Data%20Collection/MasterSergeantPiechart.png
Low ping players quit in mass last June for a number of reasons.
But new low ping players still continued coming in. This shows on Master Sergeant and Second LT, where Low pings make a big percent of the players in those ranks and up.
For some reason, something is stopping high ping players from reaching High ranks but Low ping players continue ranking up with out difficulty.
What would cause this?
High ping players are getting banned before they ever reach Second LT.
It makes sense, if a high ping player keeps getting banned at the low ranks they stay at he low ranks. But since very few make it to the high ranks, this suggest that the majority of them are getting banned.
So what percent are getting banned regularly?
High pings make up 401 of 620 (64.6%) of my sample between Sergeant-Second LT. 38 of the 401 High pings made it to Second LT or 9.4% of the high ping players.
90.6% of high ping players don't make it to Second LT.
Low ping players by contrast have 219 out of 620 (35.3%), and 71 out of 219 (32.4%) are Second LTs.
71 out of 109 (65.13%) Second LTs are low ping players. The percent of low pings in any rank should be around 35% but is reaching the 60s and higher in the high ranks.
If the 9.4% of High ping Second LTs are all that made it to Second Lt from since last June. Then the other 90.6% stopped playing for some reason before reaching Second LT (usually only mass bans hit these percentages).
So with knowing that 90.6% of high pings will not continue to increase in rank to the high ranks.
That is 58.52% (90.6%*64.6%) of the player base getting stopped before Second LT.
(Edited because I noticed several math errors)
Comments
-
-
GodsGunman wrote: »Not exactly sure what you'd use this for, but good job I suppose lol :P
Noticed a problem well reviewing my 5 months of game scores.
Collected this data to see if it wasn't just a coincidence.
Since I collected the data anyways, I decided to post it. -
CryingMonkey wrote: »Maybe the reason the lower ranks have higher pings is because the BR's are making a lot of Alts (For some reason
)
Maybe this is why your ghost mode KDR is so high. You're farming on Staff Seargent players all day
^
Proves that high pingers hack more than low pingers, good job :P
You should probably add those pie charts into the first post though.
Part 3 will be hackers in relation to pings and rank, am I right? :P -
To put it simpler terms.
60.73% (64.6%*93.9%) of all players hack regularly and get banned regularly.
That's axiomatically incorrect, because not all low rank high ping players are alternate accounts, and not all alternate accounts are hackers.
Unless you have some unbiased, conclusive evidence of people using hacks in a population, you will never get a concise percentage like the one you are suggesting.
It may "make sense", but that doesn't mean it's fact. -
That's axiomatically incorrect, because not all low rank high ping players are alternate accounts, and not all alternate accounts are hackers.
Unless you have some unbiased, conclusive evidence of people using hacks in a population, you will never get a concise percentage like the one you are suggesting.
It may "make sense", but that doesn't mean it's fact.
He's not talking about the fact of the matter theoretically, but based on the SS'es that he collected. -
If the evidence came from the screenshots, it would be practical, not theoretical.thisgameowns wrote: »He's not talking about the fact of the matter theoretically, but based on the SS'es that he collected.
And he came to his percentage by ruling all high ping, low ranked accounts as hackers, which is completely biased, and obviously not true.
His charts are great, they help others understand Crossfire's population, generally, but a conclusion like his only stifles his work. -
If the evidence came from the screenshots, it would be practical, not theoretical.
And he came to his percentage by ruling all high ping, low ranked accounts as hackers, which is completely biased, and obviously not true.
His charts are great, they help others understand Crossfire's population, generally, but a conclusion like his only stifles on his work.
I agree, the charts help a lot, but the number of hackers are basically concluded numbers O.o -
That's axiomatically incorrect, because not all low rank high ping players are alternate accounts, and not all alternate accounts are hackers.
Unless you have some unbiased, conclusive evidence of people using hacks in a population, you will never get a concise percentage like the one you are suggesting.
It may "make sense", but that doesn't mean it's fact.
It is called Indirect Evidence.
I gathered enough data to show that 93.9% of high ping players from June never made it to Second LT. What would stop them from making it? Loss of a account, what would can make you lose a account? It being banned. -
It is called Indirect Evidence.
I gathered enough data to show that 93.9% of high ping players from June never made it to Second LT. What would stop them from making it? Loss of a account, what would can make you lose a account? It being banned.
OMG, I have absolutely no idea who to agree with now. Some of the higher pingers might have (a) stopped playing Cross Fire becaus eof all the other hackers (b) got into teh beta of CF LA or (c) fond some other game or got tired of no reg.
-
It's not indirect evidence. It's a hunch. There is no causal link between lower ranks and higher pings, or the other way around.It is called Indirect Evidence.
I gathered enough data to show that 93.9% of high ping players from June never made it to Second LT. What would stop them from making it? Loss of a account, what would can make you lose a account? It being banned.
All you are doing is speculating on what is happening to higher ping players when they get to Second Lieutenant. For all we know, they could have died from starvation or Cholera.
More believably, they could have just quit. Unless you've gone through every higher ranked, high ping player's profile to check their Honorable Soldier Ribbon, there's no proof.
Like I said before, it's not conclusive. -
thisgameowns wrote: »OMG, I have absolutely no idea who to agree with now. Some of the higher pingers might have (a) stopped playing Cross Fire becaus eof all the other hackers (b) got into teh beta of CF LA or (c) fond some other game or got tired of no reg.
And yet the rate of new account floods in faster then the loss of accounts.
For what ever reason, most high ping accounts don't make it past Master Sergeant.
Possibilities.
1. High ping players quit with in a month, but the rate of new high ping accounts match/exceed the the quits.
2. High ping players are getting banned and making new accounts repetitively .
I find 2 much more likely. -
And yet the rate of new account floods in faster then the loss of accounts.
For what ever reason, most high ping accounts don't make it past Master Sergeant.
Possibilities.
1. High ping players quit with in a month, but the rate of new high ping accounts match/exceed the the quits.
2. High ping players are getting banned and making new accounts repetitively .
I find 2 much more likely.
Yes, in the case of either of those two scenarios, I would definitely have to agree with you on the second one. -
Disprove his work? I'm not disproving anything but his GUESS on the percentage of hackers in this game. It's full of hot air, and he's only fueling the fire more.thisgameowns wrote: »Do you honestly have to go throgh every single possible scenario you can think up to disprove his work? O.o
If all of the charts and data were all to conclude the percentage of hackers in this game, then you are right, I guess. I just thought it was all "neato" information. -
How could you possibly be aware of the number of accounts being lost, abandoned, banned, etc?
Crossfire NA/UK's Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/crossfireonline
It has 965,849 Likes.
Yet we only see around 10,000ish accounts active at any time in game.
A server can hold 6,400 players at a time. (16 per room times 40 rooms times 10 channels)
With nearly 1 million likes one would expect a far higher amount of players.
Where are all the accounts that liked CFs facebook page? -
Crossfire NA/UK's Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/crossfireonline
It has 965,849 Likes.
Yet we only see around 10,000ish accounts active at any time in game.
A server can hold 6,400 players at a time. (16 per room times 40 rooms times 10 channels)
With nearly 1 million likes one would expect a far higher amount of players.
Where are all the accounts that liked CFs facebook page?
Good point, because the people who stopped playing intentionally probably would have un-liked the page. -
When was that page opened? And when did you start this?Crossfire NA/UK's Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/crossfireonline
It has 965,849 Likes.
Yet we only see around 10,000ish accounts active at any time in game.
A server can hold 6,400 players at a time. (16 per room times 40 rooms times 10 channels)
With nearly 1 million likes one would expect a far higher amount of players.
Where are all the accounts that liked CFs facebook page?
Peoples' access to Facebook makes your point invalid, anyway.
Also, do you expect almost a million people to be playing this game at any given point? Or that people dropped the game soon after they liked the page?
It's all unreliable information.
![]T[yga](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/52/navatar_14049752.gif){kind=avatar}
![Danny][](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/85/navatar_13015585.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 709 CrossFire Announcements
- 712 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 319 Community
- 12 Modes
- 392 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 74 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 522 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 35 CrossFire Off Topic