Doubles games and their affect on rankings.

[hernando cortez]

if you suggested this last week why are u being a turd in my thread?

[D.IsleRealBrown]

Because you're accusing Team players of taking advantage of weaker players when the exact opposite is true.

[reverend_kyle]

not to mention team games are more fun.. why do you think more people join the team games TOURNEYS (there wont be weak noobs there)


edit: also I was looking at the scoreboard and freestyle is just as much a way to pick on noobs as doubles is.. in fact ylou say freestyle players dont dominate teh scoreboard.. .look at che2006 sure hes not in the top 5 now but he will be and by playing mostly freestyle.

[A Mans Part]

look at the logs for the top six players and then come back to the thread.

If I remember correctly, DMinus plays all escalating freestyle games also, so there goes your top 6 theory.

are u even reading my posts. I said 5 of the top 6. your exception has already been noted. the more i talk to you the more its not surprising that you dont understand this anomaly of the highest ranked players playing doubles with the same partners over and over and having ridiculous scores.

Incorrect statement, since you never said 5 of the top 6, but I played along

more than half of Scorba's games are standard. You should research more and come back with a new theory.

So, to recap, yes 66% of the top 6 play almost all doubles games. I will give you that. Expand your sample size to top ten and top 20 and you will see the percentage close to 50/50. If you want to say those players would not be ranked as high without being able to play double, then go ahead and challenge them. I feel these players are skilled in all areas and prove so by playing a large variety of maps and card styles.

[hernando cortez]

'Incorrect statement, since you never said 5 of the top 6, but I played along "

man u are dense. this was from the 5th post in this thread.

"Take a look at the rankings. there is a reason why 5 of the top 6 players play a ton of doubles and with the same partner over and over. we might as well just call the top of the scoreboard the doubles rankings."

also expanding the sample size has nothing to do with this when we are only considering the players who are outliers with extremely high point totals accumulated through doubles play with the same partner over and over. I dont know why i am even still talking to you.

[AK_iceman]

What about the Battle Royale games? I got nothing against Got_Heart, but those were possibly the easiest 700 points anyone has won on this site. He played a good game, but basically got lucky and won.

If what you have is points envy, then maybe you just shouldnt look at rank or the scoreboard. Put a mental block on it.

[A Mans Part]

dont know why i am even still talking to you.

Because it makes you feel smart?



You have not made any new points so that I can make a counterpoint. If the players had the same partner every game, they would have the same score as there partner, but you will notice nobody in the top 6 consistantly another player in the top 6.

I say to expand the sample size because players 7-12 are predominately singles players, but you chose 6 as your arbitrary number because it fit your argument.

[Robinette]

I don't play my games in order to get higher on the scoreboard. I try to get higher on the scoreboard by playing my games.

By that I mean, my goal is to win each game as best I can....win as many styles as I can....play as many different strategies as I can...and have as uch fun as I can.

From one singles player to another- I really don't care how the people above me got their points.

WELL SAID!

But I do enjoy seeing WHO my nemisis is for a particular style of game, which makes the idea of seperate scoreboards convienent... but would it be enough?
Would the freestylers want thier own scoreboard? What about No Cards?

What would be REALLY cool if the scoreboard could be sorted the same way the game finder works... Then EVERYBODY would be happy!

[Pedronicus]

I don't play my games in order to get higher on the scoreboard. I try to get higher on the scoreboard by playing my games.

By that I mean, my goal is to win each game as best I can....win as many styles as I can....play as many different strategies as I can...and have as uch fun as I can.

From one singles player to another- I really don't care how the people above me got their points.

WELL SAID!

But I do enjoy seeing WHO my nemisis is for a particular style of game, which makes the idea of seperate scoreboards convienent... but would it be enough?
Would the freestylers want thier own scoreboard? What about No Cards?

What would be REALLY cool if the scoreboard could be sorted the same way the game finder works... Then EVERYBODY would be happy!

Everyone happy in here? - pah! - nice thought

[reverend_kyle]

give him a break.. 51 posts... he isnt around the forusm alot.

[NoobMuffin]

I actually like the seperate scoreboard idea, i dont like singles sequential risk unless its in real life, i play doubles freestyle mostly, and i think it would be interesting to see which two rose to the top.

[qeee1]

Freestyle escalating and doubles are easy points in my opinion.

I wouldn't mind seperating for doubles play. Doesn't really bother me though. I think I'm more or less content with the fact that I'm not getting into the top ten at this stage, once you get above 2000 it just gets too hard to maintain points.

[General Mayhem]

Of course the Scoreboard is bias. It has been since day one.
There will always be easier to ways to win points. But it has to be said that there is not much thrill in winning 10-20 points in low-risk doubles games compared to really putting your skill on the line in a 6 player singles game and cleaning up for 100points!!

Its swings and roundabouts to some degree. Hi-risk, more points more losses. Lo-risk, less points less losses.

Just remember, its a scoreboard and not a league.

[mathgeni]

Hernando- where the f*ck do you get up the nerve to call other people idiots as such when you don't even know them. You can't judge people based on their forum posts otherwise everyone would judge you as a stupid arrogant asshole who whines too much. You made a suggestion about changing the scoreboard and told people to discuss it- they did so don't get mad when people disagree- Do you go home and cry to your mommy when people disagree about politics? And finally- if you are truly so distraught by the scoreboard find a different site to play on where people don't mind being insulted for no reason and just GROW UP.

[Kiron]

it is an interesting thought to have 2 scoreboards, but it will take a lot of energy to change everything, searching through years of log. I'm a single player myself and yes i get annoyed at not finding anyone play single games with 2000+ points. Yes there is an obvious bias toward team games and yes the chances are above 50% for teams with two partners who know each other, but leads to boring risk, it's much more fun to actually make alliances/truces during the games in a free for all situation. That's the best way to play risk. My two cents.

[Rocketry]

I agree, and while I respect the people who do this to a degree they havent earned what singles players have.

P.S. You should repost this in the suggestions and bug reports forum.

I dissagree - high ranks player should be allowed to play the games they want like the rest of us. I guess this problem could be reduced my increasing awareness amoungst new players and by assembling teams of new-ish or low ranked players to beat the high ranks at their own game

Rocketry

[The1exile]

by assembling teams of new-ish or low ranked players to beat the high ranks at their own game

Rocketry

I think this has been tried in the past with varying degrees or success.

I play quite a lot of doubles (though I do think I'm a decent singles player) primarily because the luck can get streaky and it's far easier to play a sort of relay between you and your team mate, passing armies to whoever has the better dice/setup and letting them work it, plus you use the fact that no matter how many terits you have you will always have at least 3 armies per turn to your teams advantage (one team with players of 18 terits and 1 terit will have more armies per turn than a team with 2 players each with 10 terits, discounting bonuses, for example).