lackattack, gettinhead, cheap conquerors & other bull & such

[Dukasaur]

I like Denise's post, and I think she touches on something important:

That bogrolling and a winning % of 90+ is needed to get conqueror is the entire point. It shouldn't be, and changes should be made so that there is a way to reach conqueror without targeting players on a hard map that they have no clue about.

Personally, I don't really blame the "ranchers" for doing what they do. As it stands, It isn't against the rules, and it truly is the only way to maintain such a high score. In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game (or, in this case, the scoring-structure).

Most of us understand, Demonfork, that "ranching" is the only way, nowadays, to achieve an astronomical score, and maintain Conqueror. If you want to be at the very top, you need to "ranch."

I agree with you there, Demon. But, I disagree with you in the sense that I believe there is something wrong with "ranching:"
1) From an ethical standpoint: I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain.
2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

These two factors lead me to to the conclusion that there should be, at the very least, a serious consideration of a point system/rule change. Of course, I understand that it wouldn't make things perfect; there will always, no matter what we do, be ways to exploit the points system. However, that does not mean we can't be proactive in trying to limit the ways in which that can be done.

By making it more difficult to "ranch" low-ranked players, whether that be through a scoring-structure change, a rule change, stricter moderation, you name it - we can make CC a better place. "Ranching" may be legal, but it is unethical, and runs counter to the unwritten rule of competitive play... to be the best, you should play and beat the best.

In sports, you don't see a championship team playing against 10 mediocre-to-poor teams to win the trophy; no, you see the (theoretically) two best teams (as close as you can get to that ideal), battling for the crown. This is ideal, and there may be things we can do with CC to help get us closer to it.

All morning I was thinking I should post in this thread, but I was too lazy to write a full response and I didn't want to jump in with a half-assed response. Now I see Commander has made all the points that I wanted to make, and made them very well, so I'm spared the effort...

Thank you, Commander, for a very coherent and balanced summary of the situation!

[nagerous]

GLG likes to make long long posts and respond in turn to every one of his detractors. This spurs his haters on, if he maintained a mucher lower profile he probably wouldn't be having so much crap thrown his way like former conquerors who have used similar strategies to reach the top.

[Agent 86]

I was also trying to come up with the right wording and tried, so that it would be clear and positive. Commander has done it, thanks . So this is were we are with current scoreboard it's broken and needs a fix. Solution is the problem ???

86

[Conchobar]

Well said Commander62890. I can't understand how anybody can possibly see this so called ranching as anything other than unethical & poor gamesmanship.

[oVo]

Lee is certainly the Maestro of Private Speed Games he creates,
free styling 5 minute turns on a foggy Mogul Map.

[jefjef]

GLG likes to make long long posts and respond in turn to every one of his detractors. This spurs his haters on, if he maintained a mucher lower profile he probably wouldn't be having so much crap thrown his way like former conquerors who have used similar strategies to reach the top.

Exactly. He brings much dissension upon himself. It's probably mostly a "look at me I'm the conqueror" thing.

He has every right to play the games he enjoys and pays to play as long as it is allowed by the rules. He also immensely enjoys throwing his schemes in the CC waters and trolling it.

[ljex]

I like Denise's post, and I think she touches on something important:

That bogrolling and a winning % of 90+ is needed to get conqueror is the entire point. It shouldn't be, and changes should be made so that there is a way to reach conqueror without targeting players on a hard map that they have no clue about.

Personally, I don't really blame the "ranchers" for doing what they do. As it stands, It isn't against the rules, and it truly is the only way to maintain such a high score. In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game (or, in this case, the scoring-structure).

Most of us understand, Demonfork, that "ranching" is the only way, nowadays, to achieve an astronomical score, and maintain Conqueror. If you want to be at the very top, you need to "ranch."

I agree with you there, Demon. But, I disagree with you in the sense that I believe there is something wrong with "ranching:"
1) From an ethical standpoint: I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain.
2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

These two factors lead me to to the conclusion that there should be, at the very least, a serious consideration of a point system/rule change. Of course, I understand that it wouldn't make things perfect; there will always, no matter what we do, be ways to exploit the points system. However, that does not mean we can't be proactive in trying to limit the ways in which that can be done.

By making it more difficult to "ranch" low-ranked players, whether that be through a scoring-structure change, a rule change, stricter moderation, you name it - we can make CC a better place. "Ranching" may be legal, but it is unethical, and runs counter to the unwritten rule of competitive play... to be the best, you should play and beat the best.

In sports, you don't see a championship team playing against 10 mediocre-to-poor teams to win the trophy; no, you see the (theoretically) two best teams (as close as you can get to that ideal), battling for the crown. This is ideal, and there may be things we can do with CC to help get us closer to it.

Straight-up capitalism, without any government regulations, is harmful to society...
You need a little bit of regulation, to promote equality.
Let's be progressive.

While i agree with the vast majority of your post...in the element that something needs to be done to make the conqueror spot a little more than just ranching, the analogy doesnt really apply.

The problem is two fold though really both stem from the same issue. With the vast variety of settings/map combinations cc is not really one sport but more of sports as a whole. This creates 2 problems

1) you can be the best in one setting freestyle 8 man escalating games but not very good in sequential team games. How then do you compare 2 people who are each 4500 with these settings? If to get to conqueror means playing the best how do these two players play vs each other while still playing the settings they are best on?
2) What happens when someone is really good at sequential team games but loves ass doodles...their score goes down. However then later when you play them in a team game where they should be ranked colonel...they are instead ranked a Sargent. This is a completely separate issue to the same exact problem. The rank system is broken primary because not everyone plays for rank, and secondarily because there are ranchers. The primary is far more prevalent and yet it never gets any press...only the ranchers do. This has always been rather interesting to me as while maybe 20 players ever ranch at one time there are 100's who play the settings they find fun even if they know they are not their best settings.

I agree that something needs to be done about the current situation...though i think demonfork has made some important points in his op if you guys choose to accept them or not. We must remember that any action taken will have ramifications that most will not take the time to look at and see. I for one do not want a system that restricts the ability for one to play the games they enjoy whatever those games are and for whatever the reason. Ranching as it has recently been called will always just be the next loophole in scoreboard manipulation. While we can slowly legislate against it each time a new rule is passed it takes the fun out of a game for a few unintended people.

To me change that should be made is not a drastic one...but rather simple. Make it against the rules to systematically target lower ranked players in a few different manners
1) private games in which you invite them
2) joining the games of lower ranked players consistently
3) foeing those who beat you consistently with no just cause

Now i dont think the lower ranked should be a set rank but say 6-7 ranks below you. If you are conqueror you can play as as many of the above games vs captains-majors + as you would like while if you are a brig...the same applies for anything corporals or above.

It may seem rather insignificant to some but i think the line of hosting public games that anyone can join as opposed to these forms of rank manipulation above is one that makes a huge difference. As long as you are allowing anyone to join the games other good players have the option if they want to join or not and if they dont want to join generally that means you are good enough to beat them if they do. Why else would they avoid joining a game in which they stand to win more points than they would lose?

[Master Fenrir]

Excellent post, Demon. The true issue is what the Conqueror title is supposed to mean. As it currently is, "conqueror" means the person on this site who is able to accumulate the most points based on the point system as it is. Nothing more. However, most people want the conqueror to be the "best" player on this site and can't seem to reconcile the difference between the two.

Say, for example, that one day Chariot of Fire decided to say f*ck it and farmed his way to conqueror. While a few people might have things to say, most wouldn't because CoF has established himself as one of the best players on this site. Most would feel that CoF "deserved" to be a conqueror, regardless of how he got there.

Whereas with GLG, you have the following issue:

I can maintain the rank of major with my eyes closed, playing any game type and any setting, without using any strategy whatsoever all while missing many turns... its so fucking easy for me its pathetic...

I agree and feel the same way.

In GLG's last 100 games the average score of the opponents that he faced was 1366....34 points shy of a SFC

So if we understand that it's possible to maintain 2000 points while comatose, you have to make certain assumptions about somebody with a score around 1366. That is GLG's choice of opposition and this is why he gets no e-respect. With almost every previous conqueror, you could say that they were one of the best at standard esc, or freestyle, or team games. If they farmed to get from 3500 to conqueror, you could rationalize it as just a means to an end, but you could not deny that they had "skill" at CC. GLG has not established such skill and that's why he's getting more hate than any of the previous conquerors. It'd be like if they gave Andy Kaufman an Olympic gold medal for wrestling.

HOWEVER, being conqueror is not a matter or skill, or being the best, or respect, or any of that. It's a matter of who has the most points. That's it. While I personally would not acquire points the way that GLG does, he is merely operating within the system and the rules using the tools that he is given. If you really take such issue with GLG's status as conqueror, your beef should be with the system that allows him to do so.

On a more serious note, I read your entire post and saw no mention of your grandmother's boobs. It ruined my morning.

In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game (or, in this case, the scoring-structure).

Exactly.

[eddie2]

i have kept out but am feed up of reading all this about his last 100 games

lol the last 100 games please don't try to make this sound ok... GlG has been in kort for a few months now proberly since the last 100 games... Kort training and clan games are proberly the games that have got his average opponant score up to 1364 or whatever.. take all the kort clan or kort team games away then give us a average opponant score.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree with you there, Demon. But, I disagree with you in the sense that I believe there is something wrong with "ranching:"
1) From an ethical standpoint: I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain.
2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

These two factors lead me to to the conclusion that there should be, at the very least, a serious consideration of a point system/rule change. ...

By making it more difficult to "ranch" low-ranked players, whether that be through a scoring-structure change, a rule change, stricter moderation, you name it - we can make CC a better place. "Ranching" may be legal, but it is unethical, and runs counter to the unwritten rule of competitive play... to be the best, you should play and beat the best.

In sports, you don't see a championship team playing against 10 mediocre-to-poor teams to win the trophy; no, you see the (theoretically) two best teams (as close as you can get to that ideal), battling for the crown. This is ideal, and there may be things we can do with CC to help get us closer to it.

Straight-up capitalism, without any government regulations, is harmful to society...
You need a little bit of regulation, to promote equality.
Let's be progressive.

In Defense of Bogrolling/Ranching:

1) Ethics: "I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain."

My Argument:
When I first joined CC, I voluntarily joined games which had more experienced players. Sure, I was weaker, so I was vaguely "exploited"; however, your claim overlooks that in order for me to improve, I must run through this gauntlet of fire. After being raked through the coals by much tougher competitors, I was forged anew. The bright glow of experience and newly acquired knowledge enabled me to "exploit" weaker and stronger players.

So, there's nothing morally wrong with "exploiting" weaker players for personal gain because the weaker players also gain from the exchange.


Unintended Consequence of your approach:
By imposing costs in order to discourage the most experienced players from playing with weaker players, you would unfortunately restrain the opportunities for the weaker players to learn and develop their skills from some of the most accomplished players on this site. Constraining this path to progress is morally impermissible, my esteemed fellow ConquerClubber. In order to arrive at equality, we must first be forged through the fires of stronger opponents, who may befriend us and teach us the Art of ConquerClubbing.


"2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

Again, this claim has been dealt a fatal blow from my above response. Denying the weaker players the opportunity to learn from the best limits total opportunities and their ability to improve.

Additionally, enabling only the best players to play with the best/good players is a restraint of trade which would make any rent-seeking crony capitalist cum in his or her pants. Your proactive approach would make many experienced players impervious to the risk of losing major points to the potentially good, but lower-ranked or inexperienced, players.


Conclusion:
Nay, the fault lays not with capitalism, my friend, but with the presumption of knowledge that progressivists hold dear. They assume that they know what's best for everyone, and they assume that their well-intended reforms would somehow increase social welfare and/or improve equality.

However, the terrible truth is that your model of progressivism merely leads us down the path of diminished opportunities. It vastly constrains our own volition to engage in voluntary exchanges. And finally, it darkens the futures of both the experienced and the young of ConquerClub.


We must ask ourselves:

Shall we support "progressivism"?


or shall we cast away the yoke of tyranny and fight for our

[BigBallinStalin]

My fellow ConquerClubbers, the haters are gonna hate, but they will always overlook the actual benefits of this website's current competitive process.

Let the looters and rotters complain about being unable to be the best. Let them wring their hands and blame the allegedly unjust Intensity Cubes, and let them blame their opponents for their own failure. But never let them rent-seek with the CC government in order to unjustly handicap the most accomplished players and deny the inexperienced players the ability to grow and prosper.

The ConquerClub market may be harsh, but it comes with market discipline. They will learn by the numbers! The individuals within the CC market will teach them!

Let the teachers teach, and let the young have the opportunity to become the masters of themselves.

[nippersean]

-doesn't threaten anyone that says a word: just when they are overly negative, bait/flame/troll

-my contribution to the game is: one of the few conquerors that TALKS to lower ranked players and gives them a game. NOT unranked ? new players

Other:
. The majority of negative people who take the time to talk to me in Live Chat leave MUCH less negative -- and willing to join me in games.

Fair play GLG, I'm with you on this one!

We need to work together!

Flame/bating/trolling is abhorrent to me too!

What are all these negatory people about?? We need to stamp out the fact that you can barely play the game. You (we) are the conk, and as your new PR consultant, we need to use the negative word more often! How can these people be so jealous!

We checked the rules together and got away with them! These negative people are trying to drag us down!

Furthermore - no-one has spotted the (bait/flame/troll) ploy as a way to (bait/flame/troll) others.

Once again we are way ahead of the game. No-one noticed the "gross abuse" violation, it's easy street here.

Upwards and onwards!

Screw those fools that don't realise your skills in becoming conk.

It's all about you, me, unsuspecting noobs, dubious members of a certain clan.

We'll hold it together bro' - you and me. Then the masses will understand - pah at the negative negativisms from the negativilites.

Nipp

[DiM]

whether is farming, abusing, ranching, bogrolling, specializing, or whatever you want to call it, the conqueror rank will never be achieved by a person that plays any map and any setting against any opponent.

i don't care how good you are. i don't care if you're a fricking risk genius. you will NEVER get to #1 unless you resort to farming/abusing/ranching/bogrolling/specializing/etc.
this is actually the main problem of this site and its ranking system.

only 2 things can be done:

1. change the scoring formula to one that takes into account map/settings experience/proficiency and actively discourages farming/abusing/ranching/bogrolling/specializing/etc.

2. multiple scoreboards for 1v1/dubs/trips/quads/freestyle/etc. plus an overall scoreboard that's the arithmetic mean of all other scoreboards.
this basically means that players can specialize in whatever they want and farm/abuse/ranch/etc all they want but they'll never get #1 on the overall scoreboard. GLG for instance would rule the 1v1 scoreboard and be the leader there but assuming he's have modest scores in all the other scoreboards, he's would probably be nowhere near the top on the overall scoreboard.
only the people who truly master all the maps and all the settings will get to be on top of the overall scoreboard.



PS: i'm not saying it's an easy thing to use "cheap" tactics. hell no. it takes a lot of work and dedication and a certain kind of skill that frankly most of the people would not be capable of even if they wanted to.
the problem is that because of such "cheap" tactics an all-rounder will never be more than colonel/brigadier.

[AAFitz]

Well, I have to admit, your thread lived up to the title well.

You supplied much more other bull & such than I thought was even possible.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

This is one of the best threads I've read at CC:
-sound basis lead-in
-several very good replies
-below normal baiting by the peanut gallery

But one of the BIGGEST issues Lackattack, King Achilles and detractors miss is that you:
-come and accuse/nay-say from the perspective that GLG is evil
-forget that GLG continually openly admits that he's nowhere near the best player
-you miss totally miss the historical parallels in the automobile industry

Japan made cars that US manufacturers thought were "cheap" -- and maybe they were, but at first they were inexpensive. But, they continually improved their processes and blew away other non-German manufacturers in quality. Then, once they had the volume and improved quality, they moved up the food chain: from compacts, to midsize, to vans, then pick-ups -- and killed the US auto industry. We are in a phase of a cycle.

All I've done is take CC's system, LEARN IT and adjust variables to minimize LOSING. that's it, simple as that. Most of you don't have the patience to do that. Hey, may not be pretty, but it worked.

Several people were right and/or offered some good ideas:
-"Conqueror" is a scoring system. Not MVP, not Home Run King.
-most sports have leagues, then championships. And both Seattle Mariners 70% and Dallas Mavericks 80% didn't progress well in playoffs.
-so have two or three methods of calculating players: Score = regular season, GLADIATOR: have the top 100 fight it out on multiple diverse mixed settings. shit, like Wimbledon, have a singles and team, mens/womens (put me in the women's, or Ranchers).

At 4500 I was going to quit pushing, then MC dropped to within striking range. It wasn't ego that pushed me, it mostly was detractors that fueled the fire. And for those of you that keep impuning KoRT, shame on you.

The biggest problem here is that a FEW vocal forum commenters (20-40) just GOTTA have their way. But one of you said it best: Too often players/complainers think their opinion is best -- and it isn't. And often, many of their assumptions are dead wrong.

[AAFitz]

The biggest problem here is that a FEW vocal forum commenters (20-40) just GOTTA have their way. But one of you said it best: Too often players/complainers think their opinion is best -- and it isn't. And often, many of their assumptions are dead wrong.

I feel like this last statement could be applied to everything you said as well, and what Demonfork said to some extent.

Keep in mind, I never looked into what games you were playing whatsoever, and truly, genuinely don't care and never have cared, so this point is simply about this one post, which made assumptions, and then ended saying assumptions of one or more players could be wrong. I enjoyed the irony.

My other post was about the massive amount of speculations by Demonfork about how the other 99% of the players on the site play, or what they are supposedly capable of.

I personally think his suggestion that 99% could never rise to the top, is akin to suggesting that 99% of the drivers could not drive 150 miles an hour simply because they havent done so. I agree most have not, and a great many would die and kill others, but it probably isn't that many do not have the ability not to do so...its just that they haven't decided to do so, for any number of reasons.

I myself have been here for a long time, and have had many venues to the top open to me, and I have never once actually tried, or even wanted to try to use them for very long. On another site, I held the top spot for almost 6 months, and didn't even enjoy that. I use myself as an example, because I suppose perhaps the 99% of the other players really are trying to be conqueror, and cant seem to make it work, but I suspect that isn't even close to the truth. I simply resent the silliness of suggesting that the only people that could have made it to the top did, because to be quite honest with you, I suspect the ones that would be best suited to make it, were smart enough to never waste their time trying.

That all being said, I love watching people hit the top in new ways that are legal. Its great to see the many different ways its been done, and in some ways, we can all learn from it.

I think its also fair to say we can learn something from watching players hit the top and pat themselves on the back for it....

...as I said...I love irony.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I put this in the suggestion forum years ago. If you play a rank, say 2000 points below you, than the game should not count towards your score. Win or lose

[Pedronicus]

They should rename the suggestions forum. how about the Auschwitz forum? loads goes in, f*ck all comes out.

[generalmighty]

Winning less points for beating lower ranks and vice versa would not be good, it's hard enough, for some of us mere mortals anyway demonfork, to get a high rank as it is. Changing the points system would mean cc would just end up with the vast majority of players on a similar score. And making it so you win no points or lose no points if you play someone with less than a certain number of points than yourself just seems like it makes the game, well, pointless.

It's the invite system that needs sorting, introduce a rule like 'for every invite sent you must start one open game'. That way for every invited player Glg farms one of his detractors can put their money where their mouth is and take him on.

[BigBallinStalin]

Winning less points for beating lower ranks and vice versa would not be good, it's hard enough, for some of us mere mortals anyway demonfork, to get a high rank as it is. Changing the points system would mean cc would just end up with the vast majority of players on a similar score. And making it so you win no points or lose no points if you play someone with less than a certain number of points than yourself just seems like it makes the game, well, pointless.

It's the invite system that needs sorting, introduce a rule like 'for every invite sent you must start one open game'. That way for every invited player Glg farms one of his detractors can put their money where their mouth is and take him on.

There's no need for a rule to induce that behavior.

Why don't one of his detractors do that right now?

[grifftron]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I put this in the suggestion forum years ago. If you play a rank, say 2000 points below you, than the game should not count towards your score. Win or lose

That's an effective way to kill the profit-motive, which incentivizes medium- and high-ranked players to play against or even team-up with lesser ranked players, so that they can teach them how to improve.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

Hey, Mr. Ron Paul fan, I find your post to be at odds with the ideas which Ron Paul represents.


You want a shot at beating the Conqueror and the other Big Shots? Challenge them to a game. Show us who is better. If you could consistently beat the Big Shots, then that's a victory in itself.

[ljex]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

Hey, Mr. Ron Paul fan, I find your post to be at odds with the ideas which Ron Paul represents.


You want a shot at beating the Conqueror and the other Big Shots? Challenge them to a game. Show us who is better. If you could consistently beat the Big Shots, then that's a victory in itself.

this conqueror doesnt play anyone who challenges...even on his own settings. This is why people dont like him more than they didnt like the other people who got there with other ranching tactics

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

Hey, Mr. Ron Paul fan, I find your post to be at odds with the ideas which Ron Paul represents.


You want a shot at beating the Conqueror and the other Big Shots? Challenge them to a game. Show us who is better. If you could consistently beat the Big Shots, then that's a victory in itself.

this conqueror doesnt play anyone who challenges...even on his own settings. This is why people dont like him more than they didnt like the other people who got there with other ranching tactics

That's his choice. I don't play everyone who challenges me, so why should I be forced to?

Furthermore, look at his profile's "Find all games with..." Sure, he played many low rankers, but he's also in a tournament with a lot of big shots, and he's playing a good number of 1800+ and 2000+ players on his favorite map.

So, you're miffed that he won't accept your challenge? Organize a bunch of people on here to constantly hit F5 and pack into his 1v1 speed games--if you really care that much about this.