Moderator: Community Team
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
72o wrote:Don't you hate them?
72o wrote:Don't you hate them?
MeDeFe wrote:Is this about ratings or number of troops on territories?
Metsfanmax wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Is this about ratings or number of troops on territories?
Does it matter?
72o wrote:Don't you hate them?
72o wrote:Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.
I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.
Metsfanmax wrote:72o wrote:Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.
I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.
I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.
72o wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:72o wrote:Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.
I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.
I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.
Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.
Metsfanmax wrote:72o wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:72o wrote:Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.
I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.
I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.
Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.
Well, I kind of have to agree with him. I think people just assume that it's in your best interests to give other players card spots. I don't think it's been demonstrably proven that this actually helps you. This isn't something that can be answered by logic, it's something that can be answered by empirics.
docstretch wrote:Where your strategy works for you, it doesn't make it the master strategy that all should follow or get off the site. If we all played the same, would it be any fun? Just play the game and have fun.
72o wrote:Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.
Metsfanmax wrote:72o wrote:Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.
That's not real evidence. First, there are more things that affect escalating strategy than just how you deal with leaving open card spots, and if you're better than him at those other things that would affect the outcome. Second, there's a large element of luck in this game, and that would only tend to wash out over many games, so if you or your opponent haven't actually played that many 6+ player escalating games, it's hard to draw a conclusion from it. The bottom line is that you need more than a two person sample to answer this question.
BigBallinStalin wrote:@72o, Mets, and whoevs:
I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...
Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.
But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.
Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:@72o, Mets, and whoevs:
I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...
Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.
But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.
I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users