Brace Yourself...Mapmakers.

[Fruitcake]

I agree with Changsha. To be the ultimate player on one map is far better than to be average on many.

This site exhorts and encourages people to 'be a jack of all trades, master of none'. A fine way to prepare young minds for the outside world indeed!

Lack should be visited by the Social Security for allowing such a philosophy to reign supreme. After all, doesn't the fact that the present conqueror need to constantly stroke his own ego in the desperate attempt to gain approbation from others tell you something about the disastrous road this is all leading to? Experts don't need approbation, they know they are good.

Get a grip, tear down all the unnecessary maps.

[Mr Changsha]

Mr Changsha, I think you have some serious misconceptions about the purpose of this site.

Look at the front page:

Welcome to Conquer Club, an online multiplayer world domination game.

Designed for the casual gamer....

This to me suggests that CC as a site is not about "advancing online risk" or honing the skills of players or making "online risk" into some kind of art form. Rather, it's a site where we, the players, pay money so we can have fun playing on various maps that we like. I for one couldn't give a rat's ass about "the future of online risk" or if we manage to breed some super-human automatons who excel at one map better than any other people - until the next, better automaton comes along. Like, seriously, YAWN. Where's the fun in that?

Lastly, Changsha... do other strategy-game players pick on you? Do they point at you and laugh, saying, "look, there's that guy who plays that juvenile strategy game"? Are you ashamed to admit to your friends that you have a CC account?

Amusing stuff Natty (and I'm aware I've been continuously leaving myself open for hits in this thread) but I think yours are the words of the 'happily mediocre' personality (at least in terms of Risk). I am well aware that YOU play on this site for the exact reasons described above. And fair play to you for that.

But games of skill should every once in a while be thought of in a slightly deeper sense. I'm asking this question: Should Risk be just a casual game, or does it have the potential to be more than that? If if the answer to that is yes, then one needs to consider how best to advance the game. If your answer to that is no, well then fair enough, we disagree on this point.

I've advanced the theory that specialisation leads to a higher level of understanding. And I've suggested that CC should encourage specialisation to develop the thinking behind the game further.

That I'm being challenged on this by players who seem to admit that they 'just play for fun' is really quite funny. Frankly, I'm not writing this for you. Though you are welcome to keep up the argument...

[Woodruff]

Am I alone in thinking CC should remove any map that is any way derivative? That CC should reduce the number of maps to just those that are unique, and the best examples of a game if there are countless other attempts?

Take the basic geographical maps. Classic is the original and 2.1 expanded upon it. I fail to see the point of any of the others. What do they add?

I definitely disagree with you. Variety of interface. I enjoy looking at different scenery while I play. I really am here almost entirely due to the large variety of maps available for play.

Personally I think CC should dump the "random" map. It has so many glitches you never know what you're gonna end up with.

It has so many glitches you never know what you're gonna end up with? Isn't that the WHOLE POINT of the random map?

I've advanced the theory that specialisation leads to a higher level of understanding. And I've suggested that CC should encourage specialisation to develop the thinking behind the game further.
That I'm being challenged on this by players who seem to admit that they 'just play for fun' is really quite funny. Frankly, I'm not writing this for you. Though you are welcome to keep up the argument...

I'm just confused as to why you've decided to troll in this manner. Are you really that bored?

[natty dread]

Amusing stuff Natty (and I'm aware I've been continuously leaving myself open for hits in this thread) but I think yours are the words of the 'happily mediocre' personality (at least in terms of Risk). I am well aware that YOU play on this site for the exact reasons described above. And fair play to you for that.

But games of skill should every once in a while be thought of in a slightly deeper sense. I'm asking this question: Should Risk be just a casual game, or does it have the potential to be more than that? If if the answer to that is yes, then one needs to consider how best to advance the game. If your answer to that is no, well then fair enough, we disagree on this point.

I've advanced the theory that specialisation leads to a higher level of understanding. And I've suggested that CC should encourage specialisation to develop the thinking behind the game further.

That I'm being challenged on this by players who seem to admit that they 'just play for fun' is really quite funny. Frankly, I'm not writing this for you. Though you are welcome to keep up the argument...

Describing me as "happily mediocre" when it comes to playing online risk is probably accurate. It's not the area in life in which I wish to excel. I would also wager that a majority of the players on this site feel the same way. The thing is, there's no career to be made by playing online risk. Yes, you could become the best there is on a certain map... but in the end, what do you have to show for it? Virtual medals? Appraise from your peers? None of those will feed your family.

I do however appreciate that there are players who give their all to the game, and wish to specialize on a certain game type, become the best of the best... fair enough. Those players can keep on churning the map and settings they wish to specialize on, honing their skills. What exactly keeps these players from doing so now? Furthermore, just because we have lots of maps and settings for those other types of players who don't want to specialize and become the best, how does this in any way hinder the efforts of those few elite players?

If I understand your line of thought correctly, you figure that by forcing all the mediocre players to play those same maps and settings the "experts" want to specialize on, you will provide a better challenge for the "experts" and better chances for them to hone their skills.

While on the surface this might seem like a good idea (from your point of view) I assure you that in the long run it wouldn't be. See, the problem is still the same, there's no career in CC gaming or online risk in general. You can't force all these masses of players who come here just to enjoy the game and play for fun, to become competitive players - they will get bored and quit. You have already heard the testimonies from many players that they would not continue using the site if it only had a few maps or settings... it's the diversity of gameplay that appeals to so many players on this site.

So, while I do recognize your idea as a noble cause, I'm saying that in practice, it would not work, not in the form you suggest. I suggest instead, that we keep the casual aspect of the site, and let the players play what they want to play - after all, that's what they're paying the site for. At the same time, the site could develop more challenging content for those who wish to specialize and become the best in their chosen game style. We already have tournaments and clans, which are a good example of competitive play, and a lot of the competitive players are involved in both of them. Perhaps we should steer this thread towards more constructive solutions, instead of destructive ones.

[Woodruff]

2. Encouraging players to play as many maps (and styles) as possible creates good all-round ability, and I suppose that is fair enough, but at the top-end of CC I want to see specialisation, I want to see the pursuit of brilliance, I want to see focus.

If it takes you more than 15 games in a row of playing on the same map to become an "expert" at it, then you're mentally deficient. That is why specialization is such a stupid concept.

[Commander62890]

Mr Changsha,

You mentioned that "one can never be great at everything."
In life, this is definitely true.
But on CC, I don't believe it is.

Think of it this way: you, Mr Changsha, are a master at what you do, after only 254 games.
Some players have played 20,000 games. If they play 254 games in each style over the course 20,000 games, that means they will become a master at 78 different styles of play. Are there even 78 different styles? I think not.

I'm sure many would become masters at everything if they put their mind to it over the course of many thousands of games, Mr C. I believe your mind is limited by your lack of experience.
It is indeed possible to become great at everything on CC... one just needs to put in the time and effort.

Also, with regard to Woodruff's comment above, I agree with it, to an extent. Learning a map does not take much time.
Like I said before, many of us understand every single map perfectly or near-perfect. All it takes is a few games to understand how a map works.

However, I disagree with Woodruff's comment with regard to gameplay.
There are many things one will not learn about a certain style after playing only 15 games. 254 games? Perhaps.

Anyhow... I'm just saying that one can become a master at everything on CC. All it takes is a decent mind, dedication, and many thousands of games played. Specialization is for the player who does not play a lot of games, like Mr C.

[Woodruff]

However, I disagree with Woodruff's comment with regard to gameplay.
There are many things one will not learn about a certain style after playing only 15 games. 254 games? Perhaps.

I don't remember talking about gameplay, only maps. However after only briefly considering the subject, I would disagree with you...no spoils and flat rate take very little time at all. Escalating takes a bit longer to get the intricacies...but I would say 25 games of just playing it would be sufficient to fully understand the idea.

I don't play freestyle at all, so I may be way off on this...but as I understand the concept, it seems to me that the learning curve would be less than with escalating spoils.

Or are you referring to something else?

[Mr Changsha]

Mr Changsha,

You mentioned that "one can never be great at everything."
In life, this is definitely true.
But on CC, I don't believe it is.

Think of it this way: you, Mr Changsha, are a master at what you do, after only 254 games.
Some players have played 20,000 games. If they play 254 games in each style over the course 20,000 games, that means they will become a master at 78 different styles of play. Are there even 78 different styles? I think not.

I'm sure many would become masters at everything if they put their mind to it over the course of many thousands of games, Mr C. I believe your mind is limited by your lack of experience.
It is indeed possible to become great at everything on CC... one just needs to put in the time and effort.

Also, with regard to Woodruff's comment above, I agree with it, to an extent. Learning a map does not take much time.
Like I said before, many of us understand every single map perfectly or near-perfect. All it takes is a few games to understand how a map works.

However, I disagree with Woodruff's comment with regard to gameplay.
There are many things one will not learn about a certain style after playing only 15 games. 254 games? Perhaps.

Anyhow... I'm just saying that one can become a master at everything on CC. All it takes is a decent mind, dedication, and many thousands of games played. Specialization is for the player who does not play a lot of games, like Mr C.

Great post, I disagree with it in a great many ways ( ) but great post. Lot's of top posts in this thread...this being one of them.

Woodruff mate you have to learn that sometimes it is a good thing to lie, and spout rubbish and flail madly for the next vaguely coherent idea. It is a good thing to pretend and then be entirely serious and then forget what you were even writing about in the first place. It is a good thing that people seem to like it when you do. It is even better when people engage with you in it. And everyone knows its just an opportunity to write some shit.

With regards to the always excellent Commander, yours is a very well made point. I would just add that I don't really consider myself a master at large standard no cards...I consider myself to be very good and have a couple of quite unusual weapons in my arsenal.

Concerning your belief that if one plays thousands of games over a great many maps they can become masters of them all. Well I point you to Fruitcake...

In my mere 254 games I've played a lot of very good players. I've never been so sure of my inferiority than when playing him at classic trips (+ a couple of other maps). He is simply lethal. I believe that this is due to his years of play just on that. Are you as good as he is at one map and style? If you are then I would be impressed.

I genuinely do rate that level of dedication and I would have played thousands of my own game if it is possible. Sadly, my game (often 40-100 rounds) needs ridiculous amounts of pondering to win through (8 man standard) and I mentally can't handle more than about 5 or 6 at a time. And win 50% or so of them. Which is very tough.

And I genuinely do believe that Fc and I are right, at least on this point. That true ability is measured in just how special you can be at something. It is fine to be great at many things, but I rate brilliance at one higher.

To be brilliant at many? Yes it is possible, but I don't think it is about how many games you play. But rather to just have a truly excellent mind.

Of those, King_H would be the stand-out for me...and his posting is missed too.

[jefjef]

Personally I think CC should dump the "random" map. It has so many glitches you never know what you're gonna end up with.

It has so many glitches you never know what you're gonna end up with? Isn't that the WHOLE POINT of the random map?

Woody. Just like the point of this thread, my post you quoted, is called humor. Not everything posted has serious intent...

[Lubawski]

Without the variety of maps, my knowledge of geography would suck. I don't play this site for the challenge. I play it to learn.

[Fruitcake]

Thanks for the plaudits Mr C.

I do think achieving brilliance in one thing is one step higher than being good at a few things.

I have made the Classic trips game my true one test. Interestingly, I have a 74% (356 out of 478 games) win rate on Classic trips. Deeper analysis shows that steady improvement does come even after mastering something. In the last 100 trips games I have played I have won 82 (which seems about the limit of my skills as I won 83 in the previous 100 games). Analysis shows that my oppos have consisted of 1% Generals and above, 5% Brigadiers, 10% Colonels, 22% Majors, 13% Captains, 11% Lieutenants, 11% Sergeant 1st class and 27% the rest, so a decent mix.

Going back, I was never too bad at Classic having played it on the board for some decades so only had to learn the skills of the trips game. However, I would say categorically, that the Classic Board is akin to backgammon, one can learn how to play it very quickly, but it you never stop noticing nuances in play, I know I do to this day.

Unfortunately, the number of maps has actually affected the ethos of cc. Clan wars are no longer about depth of knowledge but about breadth. Now while this is good as an example of a society that is in the steady inexorable process of dumbing down as it rewards the average more than the brilliant (the medals attest to this as well as it means nothing more than a single gold star to be brilliant) it does not encourage true excellence. I would be happy to be convinced otherwise.

[safariguy5]

The problem I have with idea of separate leaderboards is that it seems like it's just another way for players to brag. You bring up the introduction of medals as a way of "dumbing down" the game and catering to people who want to feel good. Everyone loves to be awarded things and it makes good business sense to make your customers happy. By suggesting that we create separate leaderboards, isn't it just catering to people so that they can say they were"#1 on Classic for 3 weeks" or whatever? To me, it's similar to the medals in that it rewards people in new ways. Surely, you cannot champion new scoreboards and also disapprove of medals Mr. C, because I see the principle behind both of them to be the same.

[elfish_lad]

It certainly is an interesting topic.

I guess I'm not convinced that the number of maps really affects the ethos or the pathos of CC. I think that comes from elsewhere. Like the leadership of the site and the community as a whole.

I do find FC's post of interest however. I remember when Chip came out with a dice analyzer and FC posted about his hideous dice. And it sure looked like they where indeed hideous. Someone asked me (or in the thread I'm not sure), "how can a general claim to have hideous dice?!?!" And that's where the backgammon illustration hits the nail on the head: nuance. Great players, regardless of the number of maps, continue to learn the nuances of an otherwise very simple game.

I was a speeder for most of my CC experience. I've played (crazy I know) just over 2700 games with a winning percentage of 1 point under 60%. Pretty good when you consider 1v1 being influenced the most by bad dice streaks. The majority of those where on Pelo Wars and Route 66. I played for the speed, I would watch how players played under the stress of the clock and in the face of so many neutrals and with the fact that there are no easy drops or bonuses to be had. I really enjoyed those games. Quite a lot actually. I'm glad those maps were available. Although they are among (I would guess) the least favourite maps on the site.

But I was also glad there were a lot of other game experiences to be had here at CC. Or I would have walked after my enjoyment of those maps and game types ended.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here at all, but I've yet to be convinced that the amount of "generic RISK type maps" negatively affects the site at all. Positively or negatively. As I am slowly learning the intricacies of triples and quadruples play (and I'm a slow learning) the number of maps (or even type for that matter) seems to have very little to do with that at all.

If I'm still missing the point I'm sure you'll feel free to let me know! lol

Cheers,

E.

[Mr Changsha]

I do find FC's post of interest however. I remember when Chip came out with a dice analyzer and FC posted about his hideous dice. And it sure looked like they where indeed hideous. Someone asked me (or in the thread I'm not sure), "how can a general claim to have hideous dice?!?!" And that's where the backgammon illustration hits the nail on the head: nuance. Great players, regardless of the number of maps, continue to learn the nuances of an otherwise very simple game.

I was a speeder for most of my CC experience. I've played (crazy I know) just over 2700 games with a winning percentage of 1 point under 60%. Pretty good when you consider 1v1 being influenced the most by bad dice streaks. The majority of those where on Pelo Wars and Route 66. I played for the speed, I would watch how players played under the stress of the clock and in the face of so many neutrals and with the fact that there are no easy drops or bonuses to be had. I really enjoyed those games. Quite a lot actually. I'm glad those maps were available. Although they are among (I would guess) the least favourite maps on the site.


E.

I think that is the interesting thing. Players such as woodruff (and many thousands more) think this is a simple game. And it is to an extent. Just as chess is a simple game, yet the nuance...

It is not really about how many games you play. Woodruff says you can master a map (or style I suppose) in 15 games. Commander says you probably can't. In fact you can, but woodruff probably couldn't. Why? Because woodruff believes it is a simple game. Which is why woodruff has played hundreds of my style of game yet probably has less than a 20% win rate. To master a game is not about how many games you play, it is about how much you think about the game. I mean really think about it.

I achieved about a 65% win rate at trips over about 30 games against top quality opposition. Not many games, but by god I'd lead office discussions about position, tactics, strategies and psychology for hours. Playing 8 man standard or 8 man dubs, we (the chaps mentioned above) would again spend hours smoking up and pondering, or sit in the pub discussing positions. We did this through 2008 to 2010. Obsessively. That's how you win 50% of 8 man standards or 80% of trips (btw Fc...80%+ is ridiculous). The idea that this is a 'simple game' is just ludicrous.

But this is where specialistion comes in. If you are playing 50+ games at a time on numerous styles you simply aren't aiming for excellence. Or if you are then you are a hell of a lot better than I, or Fc, is at this game. 'Cause we couldn't do it.

Finally Fc's point about clans is a good one. I can remember, back in the day, that the best players (at least the noted ones) were specialists. The old 8 man freestyle speed escalating battles were all on classic. Just classic. The best doubles players proved it on 2.1. Feudal specialists were some of the most respected players on that site at the time. I can remember players like Comic Boy being considered to be quite amazing and he played his 8 man esc seq. stuff...on classic (or at least a lot of it) Robinette broke 3,000 within 200 games (again, this is my memory here) just playing classic standard esc. I followed a similar route (on 2.1 and classic) and attempted to be the best on a map anyone could play. That was the environment when I came on to CC. To be the best you had to do it on maps that everyone knew...no tricks. These days though...it is about breadth as Fc said. Yet that often involves having more knowledge than your opponent (of the map) and winning through learned tricks. Is that so great? When Fc wins 80% of his games on classic trips there are no tricks. He just has to be better. Why do I concentrate on 2.1 and classic for standard games? Not because I'm lazy...the exact opposite. I want to win 50% of my 8 man games on maps everyone can play. It is far more rewarding to do that than to win an 8 man on a map most have never played before. After I'd played about 60 games here I had already been invited to join the BpB (to play in the CLA), and was known to be excellent at my style. 60 games.

I get that most don't care about excellence on CC..at least with regards to Risk. But don't be surprised that Fc and I look down our noses at medals and playing thousands of game on hundreds of maps by people who claim to aspire to it. You can do it...but it isn't excellence. I don't care how many medals you have.

Hence I want to see CC get back to specialisation.

[Woodruff]

It is not really about how many games you play. Woodruff says you can master a map (or style I suppose) in 15 games.

You seem to have difficulty reading the written word, if you're not sure what I said regarding styles.

Commander says you probably can't.

That is not what Commander said. More difficulty with the written word. Or perhaps just plain dishonesty.

In fact you can, but woodruff probably couldn't. Why? Because woodruff believes it is a simple game.

It is a simple game. At least for me. Perhaps for someone of limited intellectual capabilities, it is not.

Which is why woodruff has played hundreds of my style of game yet probably has less than a 20% win rate.

Actually, it has to do with the fact that Woodruff is not afraid to play a very varied type of game on very varied maps. Woodruff is not afraid to expand himself, rather than pigeonhole like a poor turtledove afraid to leave the warm nest.

Hence I want to see CC get back to specialisation.

Map specialization is about fear and ego. Nothing else.

[Mr Changsha]

It is not really about how many games you play. Woodruff says you can master a map (or style I suppose) in 15 games.

You seem to have difficulty reading the written word, if you're not sure what I said regarding styles.

Commander says you probably can't.

That is not what Commander said. More difficulty with the written word. Or perhaps just plain dishonesty.

In fact you can, but woodruff probably couldn't. Why? Because woodruff believes it is a simple game.

It is a simple game. At least for me. Perhaps for someone of limited intellectual capabilities, it is not.

Which is why woodruff has played hundreds of my style of game yet probably has less than a 20% win rate.

Actually, it has to do with the fact that Woodruff is not afraid to play a very varied type of game on very varied maps. Woodruff is not afraid to expand himself, rather than pigeonhole like a poor turtledove afraid to leave the warm nest.

Hence I want to see CC get back to specialisation.

Map specialization is about fear and ego. Nothing else.

Seriously woodruff...you've gone from being anal to literally prolapsing all over this forum. And as everyone knows, an anal prolapse is no good for anyone. Not even woodruff. Who likes to be anal.

Beyond that, your post is simply not worthy of comment.

[grifftron]

Seriously tho Mr.Chang

Your only bet is to suggest the double ladder system, that is the only way this is going to happen, other then that this whole thing is a joke...

[Qwert]

someone talk abouth separate boards,well i only can sugested these two,who will give something new and refreshed things to CC.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=65747

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=123804

[Mr Changsha]

Seriously tho Mr.Chang

Your only bet is to suggest the double ladder system, that is the only way this is going to happen, other then that this whole thing is a joke...

I'm not suggesting anything. Why on earth would I bother to do that? Furthermore, the only double ladder system I am aware of is related to the situation regarding a lady's stockings. And frankly, that shit is so depraved even I wouldn't post that kind of filth here.

I mean fucking hell.

The suggestion forum is as much use as howling at the freakin' moon to find a date. Enjoyable in of itself, but really not all that productive if thought about practically. Or to look at it from another perspective, it would be like trying to teach Woodruff about either nuance, or apparently strategy in general...judging by some of Mr 'Risk is Easy!!!!!!!' Woodruff's comments in this thread.

Heh heh heh...

[Mr Changsha]

2. Encouraging players to play as many maps (and styles) as possible creates good all-round ability, and I suppose that is fair enough, but at the top-end of CC I want to see specialisation, I want to see the pursuit of brilliance, I want to see focus.

If it takes you more than 15 games in a row of playing on the same map to become an "expert" at it, then you're mentally deficient. That is why specialization is such a stupid concept.

Fc, on the other hand says that after literally hundreds of classic games he is still learning.

Therefore, Fc is mentally deficient.

Hmm...

Woodruff, do you see where you've gone horribly, horribly wrong old chap?

[natty dread]

I think there's another point that I should point out at this point...

CC is a community-based site. It is a site based on a community of players, all gathered to play this game... and it is driven by the community, what the community wants, and evolves within those specifications.

When CC was younger, there were less maps, less game options, less players... obviously, it was quite a different community back then. I wasn't even around at the very beginning, but I can imagine what it must have been like.

But the thing (the point) is, that CC is constantly evolving. The community is what drives this evolution: the players (who form that community) are who develop new maps, who form clans, design tournaments, and offer suggestions to the site admin...

The main point is this: perhaps CC as a gaming environment is not the same as it was when Changsha or Fruitcake started playing. Perhaps it has evolved in different ways than they anticipated, but it doesn't mean that it is all for the worse. CC is growing, and catering for a larger group of people. Obviously this means that the content the site offers also needs to be more varied.

So, players of the old remember when there were fewer options, and they could specialize on the most prevalent game style and be confident that this gave them a ticket to the top. Now, things are not the same as they used to be. CC has evolved.

I think, Changsha and Fruitcake, that you're largely just missing the old days. I think you miss being the big fish in the small pond. The pond has grown, and now offers a home for more fish... large and small. For better or worse, there's no going back to the past. We just have to swim forward, and hope that the great fisherman takes us later rather than sooner.

[Fruitcake]

I think, Changsha and Fruitcake, that you're largely just missing the old days. I think you miss being the big fish in the small pond. The pond has grown, and now offers a home for more fish... large and small. For better or worse, there's no going back to the past. We just have to swim forward, and hope that the great fisherman takes us later rather than sooner.

Hmmm..interesting point. I think being number 23 on a scoreboard of nearly 22,000 (and not dropping my rank in over 2 years) keeps me as a pretty big shark in this pond.

Moving on, I think assumptions are pretty much in overdrive here.

Mr C was not suggesting anything else but the simple premise that adding maps that are purely (pale) imitations of existing maps, or adding maps that were little more than adding a few tricks, does nothing for the overall gaming experience. I refer you to the thrust of his his original post...

I would say that Classic is the original, is the genesis of all that has since come. The classic map is fundamental.

2.1 expanded on Classic and made it a better game.

I would add that I consider Waterloo, Feudal, and New World to also have developed the game. There may be others I am missing but I think you take my point. At this stage of online Risk's development, I simply don't see the value of a hundred+ maps that, in my view at least, actually manage to dilute the game.

At the moment CC simply cannot say "This is Risk." It is a juvenile mess. If the game is to continue to develop then CC must take some hard decisions on where the game is going.

The question must surely be....Where is this all going to lead?

[laughingcavalier]

Well said Natty - it's breathtakingly pompous of Fruitcake & Mr C to assume that their route to excellence is the only one.
Part of the joy of CC is the great variety here - the choices of games to play, choices of "career" for those who stick around, & variations in the precise route that the best take to prove their worthiness to themselves & their peers.
But I do like a good Mr C thread, and this is the best we have had for a while.
Audacious as it is there is something in this idea that maybe there is too much choice now when it comes to maps.
Last time this idea came up in gd - I would look for the link if I had time - there was talk of a threshold of originality for new maps to cross - and some of the chaps from the foundry suggested there might be a good technology solution for existing maps that might not go all the way that Mr C wants but would offer a compromise.
Along the lines of: a hierarchy of maps, with different levels of availability of the core maps & those that are variations on themes, so the wider choice is available to those that want them while more play is concentrated on fewer key maps.

[Woodruff]

Seriously woodruff...you've gone from being anal to literally prolapsing all over this forum. And as everyone knows, an anal prolapse is no good for anyone. Not even woodruff. Who likes to be anal.
Beyond that, your post is simply not worthy of comment.

I'm sorry you fear it so. Your desire to twist things around for a laugh has limited you so much.

2. Encouraging players to play as many maps (and styles) as possible creates good all-round ability, and I suppose that is fair enough, but at the top-end of CC I want to see specialisation, I want to see the pursuit of brilliance, I want to see focus.

If it takes you more than 15 games in a row of playing on the same map to become an "expert" at it, then you're mentally deficient. That is why specialization is such a stupid concept.

Fc, on the other hand says that after literally hundreds of classic games he is still learning.

Therefore, Fc is mentally deficient.

Hmm...

Woodruff, do you see where you've gone horribly, horribly wrong old chap?

Yes, I went wrong in expecting you to be anything but a troll, with Fruitcake tagging along like a good little pet flying monkey.

[Mr Changsha]

Seriously woodruff...you've gone from being anal to literally prolapsing all over this forum. And as everyone knows, an anal prolapse is no good for anyone. Not even woodruff. Who likes to be anal.
Beyond that, your post is simply not worthy of comment.

I'm sorry you fear it so. Your desire to twist things around for a laugh has limited you so much.

2. Encouraging players to play as many maps (and styles) as possible creates good all-round ability, and I suppose that is fair enough, but at the top-end of CC I want to see specialisation, I want to see the pursuit of brilliance, I want to see focus.

If it takes you more than 15 games in a row of playing on the same map to become an "expert" at it, then you're mentally deficient. That is why specialization is such a stupid concept.

Fc, on the other hand says that after literally hundreds of classic games he is still learning.

Therefore, Fc is mentally deficient.

Hmm...

Woodruff, do you see where you've gone horribly, horribly wrong old chap?

Yes, I went wrong in expecting you to be anything but a troll, with Fruitcake tagging along like a good little pet flying monkey.

You call me the troll...yet I don't think you've added one word of value to this thread. You've sniped, bitched and whined to be sure, but written anything of worth?

I don't think so.

The purpose of this thread is to stimulate debate. You may not approve of my methods but you can't deny a good discussion has been had. Yet I'm a troll? The only CC'er to get even slightly upset at me is you (as far as I can tell) which either means I'm a rubbish troll, or everyone else gets what you seem unable to grasp...that I'm not trolling (though my style might suggest I am) but rather trying to challenge established understanding. I'm far from sure I'm even right, I just want to encourage people to look at things from different perspectives.

That is a good thing.

I have had not one complaint about this thread from anyone but you. Just you. I've basically spent the last two pages saying that most player's CC ambitions are flawed, nonsensical and sadly misguided. Yet only you take issue with this thread. Why? Because most understand that my views are just that...views. Everyone knows they will have no consequence, but I would think most agree that it is my right to express them. Even in colourful language.

Seriously my man...I know you are annoyed with me now because I gave you a good whipping, though I'd be surprised if you thought I would do anything else. But why you were pissed off in the first place is a matter of some genuine confusion for me.