Favourite Conqueror?

[codeblue1018]

Im looking forward to the day when I get so desperately needy that I start to canvas votes for an internet popularity contest , it probably wont be long

Since I'm assuming you will vote for yourself, I'll be the 2nd vote mate,

[laughingcavalier]

Im looking forward to the day when I get so desperately needy that I start to canvas votes for an internet popularity contest , it probably wont be long

Since I'm assuming you will vote for yourself, I'll be the 2nd vote mate,

Don't you usually vote for glg?

[VampireM]

talk about a guy that just loves to toot his own horn..

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=177224 i find it sad.. but thats just me

[codeblue1018]

talk about a guy that just loves to toot his own horn..

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=177224 i find it sad.. but thats just me

Most do mate. He's a mental.

[Kiron]

This whole thread seems to be trash GLG. I'm sure he is an asshole. But then again so am I.

All conquerors have a simple problem to overcome: gaining points.

GlG was beaten recently by a captain and lost 68 points, beat a captain and won 6. Thai Robert won a 8 player freestyle game and wins 50 odd points, loses one and loses 50 odd points.

Emdizzles thread on becoming a colonel or general in 100 games or whatever is a clear cut guide to hoarding. It takes advantage of the scoring system by partnering with a low ranked player, use of lay of the land by choosing certain maps, etc.

Many of the top players like huge maps; hive, world (kaskavel, thai Robert, mhennigan, kiron), freestyle settings, or team games.

They also employ the same general tactics: board spacing, keeping the board level in strength, using potential attack rather than actual attack, creating and exploiting opportunity, etc.

The maps they choose, the settings they choose and their style of play all comes with a clear goal, win. A big map leaves less to the luck of the dice, freestyle means you can take advantage of any opportunity, team games increase use of tactics and limit risk of bad dice again. Board spacing, keeping the board level and potential attack all increase their opportunity to win. They are all operating within the confines of the structure that CC has in place.

Each of them gets accused of cheating. Thai Robert for turning off his online settings and sneaking a kill that someone else has done the work on, mhennigan for use of open diplomacy, Mc05 for his intentional deadbeating, GLG for ranching.

For their discipline, congrats to all players who care and focus on winning. For their strategy, well done on exploiting the system to your advantage. For their style, the game ranks it the best.

As for who is my favorite at performing these same set of tricks? Mohamed Ali, but that doesn't mean I would prefer to piss Tyson off over him.

It seems this poll was set up so that GLG would lose, based on the comments. The irony is that to "win" the poll, you must use his tactics. Recruit specific voters, like he recruits his opponents; control the voting as much as possible, like he controls the game settings; guide the voting through helpful suggestions (ie loads of people praise a specific player on the board and makes him out to be a legend and all say yep, he has my vote), like he gives to his recruits; make promises to increase recruits so you have a higher turnout than him, as he makes promises to his recruits to increase their numbers (most of which can't be kept due to the sheer magnitude or inherent irrationality in them) and you'll have your winner. But I think it is highly amusing that he beats you in this aspect of the game as well, . It is always fun to watch a top player lay the smack down outside the game.

I suggest if you really dissapprove of a style of play, then instead of publicly attacking people and putting them on the defence and then barring them from the discourse; suggest refinements to game options that will make a player with worthier attributes Conqueror. Because it will be the person best able to exploit the scoring system, game options and all other advantages provided for by the system that creates a conqueror.

Ah, so you're saying it's all the systems fault. And that players shouldn't use their own heads to determine whether something is fair and honorable. No instead the site should just restrict our game options in all sorts of ways to make sure that the conqueror will be a worthy one. It will of course end up being very impractical, annoying and highly detrimental to the enjoyment of the game for the regular user who just wants to play some games. But nevermind all that because it's all being compensated by that now we no longer have to think about breaking any rules. Because we can't.
Sounds like you've thought this through extensively. I'm impressed!

Is there anything wrong with like huge maps with decrease luck variance? Afterall, how would u like losing 50+ points due to bad dice? the point systems screws the higher ranks in game losses, so claiming even odds of good/bad luck doesn't exactly give neutral point gain outcomes. What r we to do to gain ranks? I try to play with random players, but small maps are just too luck based with large number of players (everyone has like 2-5 regions instead of 8-13 regions on larger maps) and it isn't really worth the risk to play with less players since our rewards are lower but risk is the same (to most skilled player, the odds of winning in 3 player game and 8 player games are roughly similar).

[fadedpsychosis]

Is there anything wrong with like huge maps with decrease luck variance? Afterall, how would u like losing 50+ points due to bad dice? the point systems screws the higher ranks in game losses, so claiming even odds of good/bad luck doesn't exactly give neutral point gain outcomes. What r we to do to gain ranks? I try to play with random players, but small maps are just too luck based with large number of players (everyone has like 2-5 regions instead of 8-13 regions on larger maps) and it isn't really worth the risk to play with less players since our rewards are lower but risk is the same (to most skilled player, the odds of winning in 3 player game and 8 player games are roughly similar).

Hey, it's all part of thinking strategically. In the actual military we are taught to do everything we can to minimize risk for maximum gain. I have nothing against players who play to their strengths and do what they can to minimize possible point loss. In fact the way you just described it, you're more likely to play against higher ranked opponents for better point gain/minimal point loss, which I very much approve of.

[_sabotage_]

you're more likely to play against higher ranked opponents for better point gain/minimal point loss, which I very much approve of.

Kiron is ranked 5th, and there is no one that could increase his point gain/minimize loss. He must beat 7 "good" players for each one he loses to to balance his points. Limiting himself to playing with similar players would negate this, but would also leave him with a limited number of equally skilled players and this would be boring and literally pointless. Once the fundamental strategy is being used by all on the board nobody gets much advantage from it.

In escalating games the fundamental strategy is quite basic: be hard to kill and make others hard to kill for others once the troops gained from killing someone outweigh those sacrificed.

Every point I mentioned as increasing odds reflects this. Big map, keeping a good spread, freestyle, etc.

Most basic players just don't get this. A typical example is when a player spends 6-8 troops getting a bonus of two in the first or second round of an escalating game. An 8 player escalating game generally ends in round 7-9. Unless the bonus is extremely easy to take and hold, you will probably have accomplished three things in taking it:

1. Centralizing yourself in one area. While you were busy taking the bonus, your other troops are getting wiped out, you lost troops in taking it, and need to deploy troops to maintain it. A simple trick is to force the bonus taker to block himself in by forcing him to take the only available card spot or else attack a big enough stack that may destroy his potential defence. A centralized player is easy to kill because it allows the attacker to focus his assault. For medium and small maps this is very true. For a big map, if you have failed to build up in a few places, this is also true.

2. Reduce your total troops. If it took two rounds and 6-8 troops to get your bonus of two, then it would take you until round 7 to see any benefit. The chances are that others will focus their attack on you around the map and that you will never see any benefit from the bonus, actually focusing the attack on you will result in a net loss.

3. Reduce your opportunity to kill. This is due mainly to the first two points. The first second cash in an 8 player escalating game is worth 30 troops, the same as holding Europe in classic for six rounds without any losses on it. The ability to kill a player at this point is worth 35 or 75 depending if you get one or two sets. If you've focused your attention on holding a bonus and others have singled you out because of the bonus, your ability to kill will be confined.

The sum total of taking a bonus makes it a limiting strategy rather than one which creates potential. This of course depends on the map size, and settings. This is not true in trench, etc.

The same blinders which lead a person to take a bonus in such a game persists throughout the persons play: a lack of logic. These players don't consider what the board will look like at the key time, the killing time and often leave a hapless target to be killed for their cards.

A good player will try at all costs to avoid being the victim of such senselessness. This is easiest achieved on a large map. A player of high rank attracts suiciders. You will also find high ranking players use chat more and may ask a player to provide a specific spot for them or an exit from an area. This also leads them to get attacked by illogical players.

If you always play players of your own skill, intelligence and knowledge, you are leaving the win to luck. If you are playing against players of less skill, you increase your chance of winning since they aren't as good at winning as you but face many dangers. A great player like Kiron is able to negotiate his way through a diminishing returns system to keep gaining points against the odds. As are all the top players. Our conqueror will always be the person best skilled at this single point: they're best at beating the point system.

Our conqueror will always know a few complicated big maps very well, play less knowledgable players of a rank where they can gain points according to their winning percentage, play freestyle if they have the time and speed, etc. How successfully they exploit their knowledge of the map, their opponents and the settings will show how high they go.

War is no different but offers more possibilities than the limitations of this site and game. And just as in war, people will find ways around the limitations and when they do, they aren't chastised, they are idolised. I believe America was the only country to not ratify the international tribunal for war crimes, they also use ambiguous language to avoid the limitations on the ones we've already committed to, ie calling those we wish to torture and deprive of due process enemy combatants.

The question I feel isn't who is the favorite conqueror, but do we appreciate their play at all, for all of them.

I win about 50% of 4 player escalating on classic against players of my current rank. If I continued merely playing these games I would go up in rank to borderline colonel and would stagnate there. If I tried to play against higher rank players, I would still stagnate there. Each method of play will have a stagnation point unless you are winning 100%, ie remove the luck. The highest ranked players have chosen the settings, maps, opponents that will provide them with the highest possible stagnation point and pursued their strategy diligently in accord with the reward system, points, put in place by the site.

So to my question, do we like these players who are so interested in the reward the site has in place that it dictates their play, maps, settings and opponents? Do we admire people who use logic over luck?

I believe this thread was created mainly to knock the current conqueror. He has pursued a system with the highest stagnation point and it upsets people. If people are upset with anyone, it should be CC.

A while back MC05 was accused of cheating through intentional deadbeating in an ongoing game. His point was simple and never really answered. What's to stop my opponent from doing it? Easy answer, too. Report him. Be a rat, no that's wrong because that would mean one report would stop any cheating, which it doesn't. So be a stool pigeon. Have a report up each time. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I don't think he wants to be one. Like Afroaction.

Afroaction was too stupid to figure out how to prove that his three opponents actions amounted to point dumping. He had some figures, but not the brains to work it through. Simply one player in a group of three friends won 50% of 4 player games, while the fourth non-friend won 25% of the time. Because the fourth player won 25% of the time, it's fair. His friends claim he is the dominant player among them and they are trying to figure out how to win more against him. But if you compare his 4 player winning percentage in games without them, it's much less. So while they may not have been intentionally point dumping, their group dynamic is such that it increases this players chance of winning and I would recommend they change their dynamic. But then again Afroaction claimed I was cheating in our last game because I didn't take a card and I assume has put in accusations about others, a stool pigeon. But even if his accused were found guilty, what profound change would hit the site? None, maybe more people would complain, probably not.

Whereas the point system is fixed, the rules are subjective. What's to prevent this to happening to me? Was the question.

1. Be a stool pigeon.
2. Spend time collecting evidence.
3. Hope the mods side with you.

What's the benefit in doing this? You can just foe someone with no effort, time or qualms. What will be the opponents punishment? They get to keep the points and for a first infraction, nothing. Unless someone attracts attention to themselves by being exceptional, like MC05, there is no punishment.

As such the abuses which can create a higher stagnation point are created by CC. And then only executed against those good at it.

The player best at exploiting these cracks will be the conqueror and these cracks are CCs alone. As such I suggested we make the cracks available to all or remove them for all. In either case, knowledge will rule instead of backbiting and subjective punishments by CC.

The game sets the carrots and the stick. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[codeblue1018]

I personally like the Soliciting of other players to ensure a GLG vote, aside from the tourney of course.

GLG to Falkomagno: (exact text)
"thx much. beware of high maint complaining partners.
join my Tournaments -- and vote for both? 37+38-GLG"

[codeblue1018]

Im looking forward to the day when I get so desperately needy that I start to canvas votes for an internet popularity contest , it probably wont be long

Since I'm assuming you will vote for yourself, I'll be the 2nd vote mate,

Don't you usually vote for glg?

Oh elsie, I was really hoping for a smiley face after that question. But to answer your question, that would never happen mate unless there was a vote to have him stripped of everything, then perhaps.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

_sabotage_

wow, interesting post. One of the more intelligent ones I've seen. Code and his buds should be as insightful.

[Gillipig]

Im looking forward to the day when I get so desperately needy that I start to canvas votes for an internet popularity contest , it probably wont be long

Since I'm assuming you will vote for yourself, I'll be the 2nd vote mate,

Don't you usually vote for glg?

Oh elsie, I was really hoping for a smiley face after that question. But to answer your question, that would never happen mate unless there was a vote to have him stripped of everything, then perhaps.

"Stripped" as in stripped naked and rolled through tar and ordered to walk the streets to everyone's amusement? In that case I'd vote for glg too !

[Funkyterrance]

I think mhennigan is my new favourite. He's got the skillz to pay the billz.

[Viceroy63]

_Sabotage_

I really enjoy the way that you write. You are organized and go into details about the question that you quoted. Like the way you explained the basic Standard strategy. I will be watching your games to see what I can pick up. LOL.

I also agree with what you basically said about the conquerors being where they are by being able to take advantage of "The Cracks" in the CC System but not about hating the game but rather hating the site that permits the game to be played the way that it is. There is nothing wrong with the game itself but rather the complicated idiosyncrasies in the system design to be taken advantaged of in the first place by those who set them up and allow them to continue in the first place. As you noted...

As such the abuses which can create a higher stagnation point are created by CC. And then only executed against those good at it.

To a large degree not just the Mods but the conquerors themselves are at fault with this for they also know what is going on and yet stay quiet except when the spot light is shined on them with fictitious accusations that the majority of the populace are even vaguely aware of.

Rather than make the changes in the site itself, the conquerors and players are the one's who are adjusted and everyone else lead to believe that those in charge must be correct in what they are doing or they would simply not be in charge or be where they are in the first place holding the positions that they do.

I for one am happy to see that more and more people are seeing the light and the truth of things, and even to dare to write about it as courageously as you just did. And I for one support that. There's more going on than meets the eye, Horacio!

One comment that I would like to add is about what you said about the United States not ratifying or taking part in any international war crimes tribunal except of course, for it's own...

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... 8fpdamFwPA

...It's because we, The U.S.A. are the bunch of criminals who quickly snatched up the WWII criminals and employ them in our services. It would not be right to bring ourselves to the attention of the world courts. What would we do then? Where would it end? LOL. Similar, more or less, to CC happenstances.


But as long as we enjoy the game, we will continue to put up with all such things. True in the world and true in CC.

[_sabotage_]

Viceroy, you'll probably pick up my points.

[Viceroy63]

If you invite me to your games I'll take it easy on ya! LOL.

Only Standard games that is. =)

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

. . . I also agree with what you basically said about the conquerors being where they are by being able to take advantage of "The Cracks" in the CC System but not about hating the game but rather hating the site that permits the game to be played the way that it is. There is nothing wrong with the game itself but rather the complicated idiosyncrasies in the system design to be taken advantaged of in the first place by those who set them up and allow them to continue in the first place. As you noted...

To a large degree not just the Mods but the conquerors themselves are at fault with this for they also know what is going on and yet stay quiet except when the spot light is shined on them with fictitious accusations that the majority of the populace are even vaguely aware of.

Rather than make the changes in the site itself, the conquerors and players are the one's who are adjusted and everyone else lead to believe that those in charge must be correct in what they are doing or they would simply not be in charge or be where they are in the first place holding the positions that they do. . .

Lol, what a crock. The problem isn't primarily the conquerors, sites or mods. . .it's the small % of vocal complaining posters who haven't the slightest idea how to focus or succeed at something. These same people are the ones whose parents lobbied for Participation Trophies, etc. Get a grip.

[Viceroy63]

How would you know what their parents did or didn't do?

[Chariot of Fire]

He trained them

[codeblue1018]

How would you know what their parents did or didn't do?

He invited them to live chat and if they'd play against him, he'd instruct them on parenting skills/strategy after the game concluded.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

100mates told me a quote that can be modified to fit the so many negative posters around here:

"your negative opinions. . .are like penises. its okay to have them, its okay to be proud of it. Just dont take it out in public, wave it around and try and shove it down peoples throats"

[fadedpsychosis]

100mates told me a quote that can be modified to fit the so many negative posters around here:

"your negative opinions. . .are like penises. its okay to have them, its okay to be proud of it. Just dont take it out in public, wave it around and try and shove it down peoples throats"

the quote can also apply to egos... like those of some people who revive month dead threads to toot their own horns

[rhp 1]

KH... ridiculous to think otherwise

[rhp 1]

you're more likely to play against higher ranked opponents for better point gain/minimal point loss, which I very much approve of.

Kiron is ranked 5th, and there is no one that could increase his point gain/minimize loss. He must beat 7 "good" players for each one he loses to to balance his points. Limiting himself to playing with similar players would negate this, but would also leave him with a limited number of equally skilled players and this would be boring and literally pointless. Once the fundamental strategy is being used by all on the board nobody gets much advantage from it.

In escalating games the fundamental strategy is quite basic: be hard to kill and make others hard to kill for others once the troops gained from killing someone outweigh those sacrificed.

Every point I mentioned as increasing odds reflects this. Big map, keeping a good spread, freestyle, etc.

Most basic players just don't get this. A typical example is when a player spends 6-8 troops getting a bonus of two in the first or second round of an escalating game. An 8 player escalating game generally ends in round 7-9. Unless the bonus is extremely easy to take and hold, you will probably have accomplished three things in taking it:

1. Centralizing yourself in one area. While you were busy taking the bonus, your other troops are getting wiped out, you lost troops in taking it, and need to deploy troops to maintain it. A simple trick is to force the bonus taker to block himself in by forcing him to take the only available card spot or else attack a big enough stack that may destroy his potential defence. A centralized player is easy to kill because it allows the attacker to focus his assault. For medium and small maps this is very true. For a big map, if you have failed to build up in a few places, this is also true.

2. Reduce your total troops. If it took two rounds and 6-8 troops to get your bonus of two, then it would take you until round 7 to see any benefit. The chances are that others will focus their attack on you around the map and that you will never see any benefit from the bonus, actually focusing the attack on you will result in a net loss.

3. Reduce your opportunity to kill. This is due mainly to the first two points. The first second cash in an 8 player escalating game is worth 30 troops, the same as holding Europe in classic for six rounds without any losses on it. The ability to kill a player at this point is worth 35 or 75 depending if you get one or two sets. If you've focused your attention on holding a bonus and others have singled you out because of the bonus, your ability to kill will be confined.

The sum total of taking a bonus makes it a limiting strategy rather than one which creates potential. This of course depends on the map size, and settings. This is not true in trench, etc.

The same blinders which lead a person to take a bonus in such a game persists throughout the persons play: a lack of logic. These players don't consider what the board will look like at the key time, the killing time and often leave a hapless target to be killed for their cards.

A good player will try at all costs to avoid being the victim of such senselessness. This is easiest achieved on a large map. A player of high rank attracts suiciders. You will also find high ranking players use chat more and may ask a player to provide a specific spot for them or an exit from an area. This also leads them to get attacked by illogical players.

If you always play players of your own skill, intelligence and knowledge, you are leaving the win to luck. If you are playing against players of less skill, you increase your chance of winning since they aren't as good at winning as you but face many dangers. A great player like Kiron is able to negotiate his way through a diminishing returns system to keep gaining points against the odds. As are all the top players. Our conqueror will always be the person best skilled at this single point: they're best at beating the point system.

Our conqueror will always know a few complicated big maps very well, play less knowledgable players of a rank where they can gain points according to their winning percentage, play freestyle if they have the time and speed, etc. How successfully they exploit their knowledge of the map, their opponents and the settings will show how high they go.

War is no different but offers more possibilities than the limitations of this site and game. And just as in war, people will find ways around the limitations and when they do, they aren't chastised, they are idolised. I believe America was the only country to not ratify the international tribunal for war crimes, they also use ambiguous language to avoid the limitations on the ones we've already committed to, ie calling those we wish to torture and deprive of due process enemy combatants.

The question I feel isn't who is the favorite conqueror, but do we appreciate their play at all, for all of them.

I win about 50% of 4 player escalating on classic against players of my current rank. If I continued merely playing these games I would go up in rank to borderline colonel and would stagnate there. If I tried to play against higher rank players, I would still stagnate there. Each method of play will have a stagnation point unless you are winning 100%, ie remove the luck. The highest ranked players have chosen the settings, maps, opponents that will provide them with the highest possible stagnation point and pursued their strategy diligently in accord with the reward system, points, put in place by the site.

So to my question, do we like these players who are so interested in the reward the site has in place that it dictates their play, maps, settings and opponents? Do we admire people who use logic over luck?

I believe this thread was created mainly to knock the current conqueror. He has pursued a system with the highest stagnation point and it upsets people. If people are upset with anyone, it should be CC.

A while back MC05 was accused of cheating through intentional deadbeating in an ongoing game. His point was simple and never really answered. What's to stop my opponent from doing it? Easy answer, too. Report him. Be a rat, no that's wrong because that would mean one report would stop any cheating, which it doesn't. So be a stool pigeon. Have a report up each time. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I don't think he wants to be one. Like Afroaction.

Afroaction was too stupid to figure out how to prove that his three opponents actions amounted to point dumping. He had some figures, but not the brains to work it through. Simply one player in a group of three friends won 50% of 4 player games, while the fourth non-friend won 25% of the time. Because the fourth player won 25% of the time, it's fair. His friends claim he is the dominant player among them and they are trying to figure out how to win more against him. But if you compare his 4 player winning percentage in games without them, it's much less. So while they may not have been intentionally point dumping, their group dynamic is such that it increases this players chance of winning and I would recommend they change their dynamic. But then again Afroaction claimed I was cheating in our last game because I didn't take a card and I assume has put in accusations about others, a stool pigeon. But even if his accused were found guilty, what profound change would hit the site? None, maybe more people would complain, probably not.

Whereas the point system is fixed, the rules are subjective. What's to prevent this to happening to me? Was the question.

1. Be a stool pigeon.
2. Spend time collecting evidence.
3. Hope the mods side with you.

What's the benefit in doing this? You can just foe someone with no effort, time or qualms. What will be the opponents punishment? They get to keep the points and for a first infraction, nothing. Unless someone attracts attention to themselves by being exceptional, like MC05, there is no punishment.

As such the abuses which can create a higher stagnation point are created by CC. And then only executed against those good at it.

The player best at exploiting these cracks will be the conqueror and these cracks are CCs alone. As such I suggested we make the cracks available to all or remove them for all. In either case, knowledge will rule instead of backbiting and subjective punishments by CC.

The game sets the carrots and the stick. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

very well thought out.. I was with you until you turned it into a flame/bait against afro... after that, you lost all credibility...

[Gillipig]

you're more likely to play against higher ranked opponents for better point gain/minimal point loss, which I very much approve of.

Kiron is ranked 5th, and there is no one that could increase his point gain/minimize loss. He must beat 7 "good" players for each one he loses to to balance his points. Limiting himself to playing with similar players would negate this, but would also leave him with a limited number of equally skilled players and this would be boring and literally pointless. Once the fundamental strategy is being used by all on the board nobody gets much advantage from it.

In escalating games the fundamental strategy is quite basic: be hard to kill and make others hard to kill for others once the troops gained from killing someone outweigh those sacrificed.

Every point I mentioned as increasing odds reflects this. Big map, keeping a good spread, freestyle, etc.

Most basic players just don't get this. A typical example is when a player spends 6-8 troops getting a bonus of two in the first or second round of an escalating game. An 8 player escalating game generally ends in round 7-9. Unless the bonus is extremely easy to take and hold, you will probably have accomplished three things in taking it:

1. Centralizing yourself in one area. While you were busy taking the bonus, your other troops are getting wiped out, you lost troops in taking it, and need to deploy troops to maintain it. A simple trick is to force the bonus taker to block himself in by forcing him to take the only available card spot or else attack a big enough stack that may destroy his potential defence. A centralized player is easy to kill because it allows the attacker to focus his assault. For medium and small maps this is very true. For a big map, if you have failed to build up in a few places, this is also true.

2. Reduce your total troops. If it took two rounds and 6-8 troops to get your bonus of two, then it would take you until round 7 to see any benefit. The chances are that others will focus their attack on you around the map and that you will never see any benefit from the bonus, actually focusing the attack on you will result in a net loss.

3. Reduce your opportunity to kill. This is due mainly to the first two points. The first second cash in an 8 player escalating game is worth 30 troops, the same as holding Europe in classic for six rounds without any losses on it. The ability to kill a player at this point is worth 35 or 75 depending if you get one or two sets. If you've focused your attention on holding a bonus and others have singled you out because of the bonus, your ability to kill will be confined.

The sum total of taking a bonus makes it a limiting strategy rather than one which creates potential. This of course depends on the map size, and settings. This is not true in trench, etc.

The same blinders which lead a person to take a bonus in such a game persists throughout the persons play: a lack of logic. These players don't consider what the board will look like at the key time, the killing time and often leave a hapless target to be killed for their cards.

A good player will try at all costs to avoid being the victim of such senselessness. This is easiest achieved on a large map. A player of high rank attracts suiciders. You will also find high ranking players use chat more and may ask a player to provide a specific spot for them or an exit from an area. This also leads them to get attacked by illogical players.

If you always play players of your own skill, intelligence and knowledge, you are leaving the win to luck. If you are playing against players of less skill, you increase your chance of winning since they aren't as good at winning as you but face many dangers. A great player like Kiron is able to negotiate his way through a diminishing returns system to keep gaining points against the odds. As are all the top players. Our conqueror will always be the person best skilled at this single point: they're best at beating the point system.

Our conqueror will always know a few complicated big maps very well, play less knowledgable players of a rank where they can gain points according to their winning percentage, play freestyle if they have the time and speed, etc. How successfully they exploit their knowledge of the map, their opponents and the settings will show how high they go.

War is no different but offers more possibilities than the limitations of this site and game. And just as in war, people will find ways around the limitations and when they do, they aren't chastised, they are idolised. I believe America was the only country to not ratify the international tribunal for war crimes, they also use ambiguous language to avoid the limitations on the ones we've already committed to, ie calling those we wish to torture and deprive of due process enemy combatants.

The question I feel isn't who is the favorite conqueror, but do we appreciate their play at all, for all of them.

I win about 50% of 4 player escalating on classic against players of my current rank. If I continued merely playing these games I would go up in rank to borderline colonel and would stagnate there. If I tried to play against higher rank players, I would still stagnate there. Each method of play will have a stagnation point unless you are winning 100%, ie remove the luck. The highest ranked players have chosen the settings, maps, opponents that will provide them with the highest possible stagnation point and pursued their strategy diligently in accord with the reward system, points, put in place by the site.

So to my question, do we like these players who are so interested in the reward the site has in place that it dictates their play, maps, settings and opponents? Do we admire people who use logic over luck?

I believe this thread was created mainly to knock the current conqueror. He has pursued a system with the highest stagnation point and it upsets people. If people are upset with anyone, it should be CC.

A while back MC05 was accused of cheating through intentional deadbeating in an ongoing game. His point was simple and never really answered. What's to stop my opponent from doing it? Easy answer, too. Report him. Be a rat, no that's wrong because that would mean one report would stop any cheating, which it doesn't. So be a stool pigeon. Have a report up each time. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I don't think he wants to be one. Like Afroaction.

Afroaction was too stupid to figure out how to prove that his three opponents actions amounted to point dumping. He had some figures, but not the brains to work it through. Simply one player in a group of three friends won 50% of 4 player games, while the fourth non-friend won 25% of the time. Because the fourth player won 25% of the time, it's fair. His friends claim he is the dominant player among them and they are trying to figure out how to win more against him. But if you compare his 4 player winning percentage in games without them, it's much less. So while they may not have been intentionally point dumping, their group dynamic is such that it increases this players chance of winning and I would recommend they change their dynamic. But then again Afroaction claimed I was cheating in our last game because I didn't take a card and I assume has put in accusations about others, a stool pigeon. But even if his accused were found guilty, what profound change would hit the site? None, maybe more people would complain, probably not.

Whereas the point system is fixed, the rules are subjective. What's to prevent this to happening to me? Was the question.

1. Be a stool pigeon.
2. Spend time collecting evidence.
3. Hope the mods side with you.

What's the benefit in doing this? You can just foe someone with no effort, time or qualms. What will be the opponents punishment? They get to keep the points and for a first infraction, nothing. Unless someone attracts attention to themselves by being exceptional, like MC05, there is no punishment.

As such the abuses which can create a higher stagnation point are created by CC. And then only executed against those good at it.

The player best at exploiting these cracks will be the conqueror and these cracks are CCs alone. As such I suggested we make the cracks available to all or remove them for all. In either case, knowledge will rule instead of backbiting and subjective punishments by CC.

The game sets the carrots and the stick. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

very well thought out.. I was with you until you turned it into a flame/bait against afro... after that, you lost all credibility...

That was when it got fun!
Everyone are so sensitive on this site. You're a bunch of babies that can't even handle a hint of heated debate. I sometimes wonder how you get by on other forums.

[rhp 1]

you're more likely to play against higher ranked opponents for better point gain/minimal point loss, which I very much approve of.

Kiron is ranked 5th, and there is no one that could increase his point gain/minimize loss. He must beat 7 "good" players for each one he loses to to balance his points. Limiting himself to playing with similar players would negate this, but would also leave him with a limited number of equally skilled players and this would be boring and literally pointless. Once the fundamental strategy is being used by all on the board nobody gets much advantage from it.

In escalating games the fundamental strategy is quite basic: be hard to kill and make others hard to kill for others once the troops gained from killing someone outweigh those sacrificed.

Every point I mentioned as increasing odds reflects this. Big map, keeping a good spread, freestyle, etc.

Most basic players just don't get this. A typical example is when a player spends 6-8 troops getting a bonus of two in the first or second round of an escalating game. An 8 player escalating game generally ends in round 7-9. Unless the bonus is extremely easy to take and hold, you will probably have accomplished three things in taking it:

1. Centralizing yourself in one area. While you were busy taking the bonus, your other troops are getting wiped out, you lost troops in taking it, and need to deploy troops to maintain it. A simple trick is to force the bonus taker to block himself in by forcing him to take the only available card spot or else attack a big enough stack that may destroy his potential defence. A centralized player is easy to kill because it allows the attacker to focus his assault. For medium and small maps this is very true. For a big map, if you have failed to build up in a few places, this is also true.

2. Reduce your total troops. If it took two rounds and 6-8 troops to get your bonus of two, then it would take you until round 7 to see any benefit. The chances are that others will focus their attack on you around the map and that you will never see any benefit from the bonus, actually focusing the attack on you will result in a net loss.

3. Reduce your opportunity to kill. This is due mainly to the first two points. The first second cash in an 8 player escalating game is worth 30 troops, the same as holding Europe in classic for six rounds without any losses on it. The ability to kill a player at this point is worth 35 or 75 depending if you get one or two sets. If you've focused your attention on holding a bonus and others have singled you out because of the bonus, your ability to kill will be confined.

The sum total of taking a bonus makes it a limiting strategy rather than one which creates potential. This of course depends on the map size, and settings. This is not true in trench, etc.

The same blinders which lead a person to take a bonus in such a game persists throughout the persons play: a lack of logic. These players don't consider what the board will look like at the key time, the killing time and often leave a hapless target to be killed for their cards.

A good player will try at all costs to avoid being the victim of such senselessness. This is easiest achieved on a large map. A player of high rank attracts suiciders. You will also find high ranking players use chat more and may ask a player to provide a specific spot for them or an exit from an area. This also leads them to get attacked by illogical players.

If you always play players of your own skill, intelligence and knowledge, you are leaving the win to luck. If you are playing against players of less skill, you increase your chance of winning since they aren't as good at winning as you but face many dangers. A great player like Kiron is able to negotiate his way through a diminishing returns system to keep gaining points against the odds. As are all the top players. Our conqueror will always be the person best skilled at this single point: they're best at beating the point system.

Our conqueror will always know a few complicated big maps very well, play less knowledgable players of a rank where they can gain points according to their winning percentage, play freestyle if they have the time and speed, etc. How successfully they exploit their knowledge of the map, their opponents and the settings will show how high they go.

War is no different but offers more possibilities than the limitations of this site and game. And just as in war, people will find ways around the limitations and when they do, they aren't chastised, they are idolised. I believe America was the only country to not ratify the international tribunal for war crimes, they also use ambiguous language to avoid the limitations on the ones we've already committed to, ie calling those we wish to torture and deprive of due process enemy combatants.

The question I feel isn't who is the favorite conqueror, but do we appreciate their play at all, for all of them.

I win about 50% of 4 player escalating on classic against players of my current rank. If I continued merely playing these games I would go up in rank to borderline colonel and would stagnate there. If I tried to play against higher rank players, I would still stagnate there. Each method of play will have a stagnation point unless you are winning 100%, ie remove the luck. The highest ranked players have chosen the settings, maps, opponents that will provide them with the highest possible stagnation point and pursued their strategy diligently in accord with the reward system, points, put in place by the site.

So to my question, do we like these players who are so interested in the reward the site has in place that it dictates their play, maps, settings and opponents? Do we admire people who use logic over luck?

I believe this thread was created mainly to knock the current conqueror. He has pursued a system with the highest stagnation point and it upsets people. If people are upset with anyone, it should be CC.

A while back MC05 was accused of cheating through intentional deadbeating in an ongoing game. His point was simple and never really answered. What's to stop my opponent from doing it? Easy answer, too. Report him. Be a rat, no that's wrong because that would mean one report would stop any cheating, which it doesn't. So be a stool pigeon. Have a report up each time. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I don't think he wants to be one. Like Afroaction.

Afroaction was too stupid to figure out how to prove that his three opponents actions amounted to point dumping. He had some figures, but not the brains to work it through. Simply one player in a group of three friends won 50% of 4 player games, while the fourth non-friend won 25% of the time. Because the fourth player won 25% of the time, it's fair. His friends claim he is the dominant player among them and they are trying to figure out how to win more against him. But if you compare his 4 player winning percentage in games without them, it's much less. So while they may not have been intentionally point dumping, their group dynamic is such that it increases this players chance of winning and I would recommend they change their dynamic. But then again Afroaction claimed I was cheating in our last game because I didn't take a card and I assume has put in accusations about others, a stool pigeon. But even if his accused were found guilty, what profound change would hit the site? None, maybe more people would complain, probably not.

Whereas the point system is fixed, the rules are subjective. What's to prevent this to happening to me? Was the question.

1. Be a stool pigeon.
2. Spend time collecting evidence.
3. Hope the mods side with you.

What's the benefit in doing this? You can just foe someone with no effort, time or qualms. What will be the opponents punishment? They get to keep the points and for a first infraction, nothing. Unless someone attracts attention to themselves by being exceptional, like MC05, there is no punishment.

As such the abuses which can create a higher stagnation point are created by CC. And then only executed against those good at it.

The player best at exploiting these cracks will be the conqueror and these cracks are CCs alone. As such I suggested we make the cracks available to all or remove them for all. In either case, knowledge will rule instead of backbiting and subjective punishments by CC.

The game sets the carrots and the stick. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

very well thought out.. I was with you until you turned it into a flame/bait against afro... after that, you lost all credibility...

That was when it got fun!
Everyone are so sensitive on this site. You're a bunch of babies that can't even handle a hint of heated debate. I sometimes wonder how you get by on other forums.

Talk about sensitive?? lmao
simmer down slappy... I don't even like afro, and sensitive? been called a lot of things, that's not one of em... I just think if you're gonna take the time and energy to write out something that extensive, keep it on topic is all.. but whatever...