TOP PLAYERS OVERRATED!!

[dskyline]

Wow
What a topic, I have played a few games on here. I have noticed that some poeple care about the points only some care about the rank only some will only play high rank so they do not lose to much.
Good grief
Get over it
I play for fun only, I have been cussed at by player that do not know me from Adam but just because I joined their game I am a *&%#$@
People lets get real here
IT'A GAME ONLY CHILL
ok i am done lol















[/center]

[Timminz]

I'm sure the "top players" are good players, but the real factor is luck.
I've played games on this site for over a year and all I can say is the initial placement and luck of the dice outweigh everything else.
Sure, solid strategy is important, but lets face it, this is a game of chance... really no different than other games where luck is involved.

The very top players (conquerors) don't get there on luck. They work hard on strategy, and are very particular in their selection of settings and/or opponents. Not only are they good at the game, they know how to work the system. I see that you like a wide variety of settings, in your games. That's great, and you have a good score for someone who plays, pretty much, everything. My advice to you (and everyone who complains about what type of games the top players play to get there), is to not worry about them. Who cares about getting 5000 points? I don't. Sure, I feel good when I reach a new personal high, but, more importantly, I enjoy playing the game. Keep enjoying your games, and you're the real winner, no matter what your score says.

edit- wow! that guy who posted while I was typing this, really needs to learn how to use the tags, and such, but he makes a good point.

[FabledIntegral]

I'm sure the "top players" are good players, but the real factor is luck.
I've played games on this site for over a year and all I can say is the initial placement and luck of the dice outweigh everything else.
Sure, solid strategy is important, but lets face it, this is a game of chance... really no different than other games where luck is involved.

If that was true I wouldn't win about 50% of the 8-player freestyles I'm in.

[Renee_W]

It's a game of chance like poker. When the cards/dice hate you you might as well go home. When the cards/dice love you you're unstoppable. But most games occur somewhere in between those points where skill makes the difference between a long term winner and a long term loser.

[THE ARMY]

MOST OF THE TOP RANKED PLAYERS ARE OVERRATED AND GLORIFIED. Come on have you seen the games these guys play. Most of them play the same thing, either large games, freestyle, unlimited fortifications, escalating cards or 2 player games with escalating, freestyle, and unlimited fortifications. The reason they look so good is because those are the only games they play. For the first 5 rounds of a large escalating game there is relatively no strategy. The only strategy comes in the 6th and 7th rounds. But even then does starting position and other players moves help with a victory. I play a lot of very tough conquerclubbers who are ranked majors or colonels and these guys are TOUGH they play with great strategy. If these guys at the top of the leaderboard are really good why don't they play more hardcore and diverse strategy games with no cards and limited fortifications. They have strategy and i bet are pretty good don't get me wrong, but I just want them to prove it by playing more of the tougher games to win. NOW WHO'S WITH ME!!!?!!?!!?!

another low rank crying about what he cant achieve.

Johnnyrocket24 are you serious?!??!?!?!?!?!?!? hahaha don't make me laugh. Who do you play, PRIVATES, CADETS, AND CHEFS, hahahahaha, i can't believe you are making fun of me. I actually had a friend who beat you one time, and he was a CHEF, hahahaha, that just shows how good you are!

[oVo]

Actually it has no relativity to how good anybody is,
but simply shows that anyone can win.

[FabledIntegral]

8-player freestyle game I got suicided on by two people in teh same turn (lost 20+ armies in a single turn when I only had 26 total). So I lost the game, a chef won, I lost at the point cap, 100 points. That was fun. He gained 340 points (ish) from the game.

[THE ARMY]

Actually it has no relativity to how good anybody is,
but simply shows that anyone can win.

you are absolutely right oVo winning doesn't prove how good anyone is! That is what i have been saying all along, the people (for one example JohnnyRocket24) win win win, but take a look at who he plays! A lot of high scorers are overrated, they have a lot of points, gained by playing low risk games like 8 player freestyle, triples, or 2 player vs. bad opponents. They prove that they can win consistently but against who and in what?

[FabledIntegral]

Actually it has no relativity to how good anybody is,
but simply shows that anyone can win.

you are absolutely right oVo winning doesn't prove how good anyone is! That is what i have been saying all along, the people (for one example JohnnyRocket24) win win win, but take a look at who he plays! A lot of high scorers are overrated, they have a lot of points, gained by playing low risk games like 8 player freestyle, triples, or 2 player vs. bad opponents. They prove that they can win consistently but against who and in what?

1. I haven't played any doubles, triples, etc. ever, so count me out there.
2. Half the community complains that the high ranks just play each other and horde the points, the other half says the high ranks noob bash, contradictory no?
3. I play public games, less than 1% of my total games are private.
4. Games typically involve 2-3 Colonel/Brigadiers/Generals/Field Marshall (If Rashid joins), 1-2 Lieutenant/Captain/Major, and 2-3 Sergeants + Below. So there's always a variety.

Logically wouldn't you conclude that 8-player freestyle games... unless you're doing something right, you wouldn't win more than 1/8 times? That's what I would find out statistically, and considering that if you're a high rank IF you go 1/8 you will be losing probably around 30 points per loss (210) and win about 60 for a win, so a net -150. Have fun trying to keep a high rank that way.

[Bruceswar]

Actually it has no relativity to how good anybody is,
but simply shows that anyone can win.

you are absolutely right oVo winning doesn't prove how good anyone is! That is what i have been saying all along, the people (for one example JohnnyRocket24) win win win, but take a look at who he plays! A lot of high scorers are overrated, they have a lot of points, gained by playing low risk games like 8 player freestyle, triples, or 2 player vs. bad opponents. They prove that they can win consistently but against who and in what?

8 Man freestyle games are not easy to win. Public or speed games! I play both and I can tell you that most of the same people win all the time. Why? Simple they are better than others at it. Try to play an 8 man freestyle speed game and get a win. Let me know when you get your first win. I think I played like 20 games or so before I got my first win. Wins are tough to come by with many of the game's top players in it. These guys are there for a reason at least with this type of player. Scott-land, RashidJelzin, Prank Call, ManiacMath17, FabledIntergral, etc etc.

[THE ARMY]

I understand that an 8 player freestyle game is hard to win in, and also that the higher ranks are good in these games and win much more than others. But that is exactly my point. They are good in this style of game, because it is mostly what they play. They specialize in a style and continue to play it. But a downside to that is that it doesn't show true capability, if the top ranks are truley the best in ConquerClub then have them show it, not by playing one type of game, but all types. If they are the best then prove it. Dominating in a specific style is good, infact it is awesome! I would love to dominate in a specific game setting, and have others cry mercy when i am kicking their butt, but it doesn't show that they are well rounded. So i am just expressing myself and others by letting people know that we don't think they are all that. And the specialization doesn't just go for the 8 player freestyle games, but any game in which a person plays repeatedly (or if you're johnnyrocket any game as long as your playing against a cadet or chef )

[ParadiceCity9]

Well then why don't you challenge a 'specialized' player to a game of your own settings and see if you win...

[Bruceswar]

I understand that an 8 player freestyle game is hard to win in, and also that the higher ranks are good in these games and win much more than others. But that is exactly my point. They are good in this style of game, because it is mostly what they play. They specialize in a style and continue to play it. But a downside to that is that it doesn't show true capability, if the top ranks are truley the best in ConquerClub then have them show it, not by playing one type of game, but all types. If they are the best then prove it. Dominating in a specific style is good, infact it is awesome! I would love to dominate in a specific game setting, and have others cry mercy when i am kicking their butt, but it doesn't show that they are well rounded. So i am just expressing myself and others by letting people know that we don't think they are all that. And the specialization doesn't just go for the 8 player freestyle games, but any game in which a person plays repeatedly (or if you're johnnyrocket any game as long as your playing against a cadet or chef )

Many of these players can play all the settings and do well. They just enjoy this setting more. In fact I would wager all these players can play just about any setting and do well with it. Just because the game changes from Freestyle to Seq, does not make them all of a sudden dumb at this game. Or they go from Escalating to No cards. All of them can make that transition with ease.

[THE ARMY]

If they can win in any setting then they should try playing every setting, im up for a challenge. If they can hold there own and there points during all the different settings then they are truley good

[Timminz]

If they can win in any setting then they should try playing every setting, im up for a challenge. If they can hold there own and there points during all the different settings then they are truley good

I prefer india pale ale over pilsner, so most of the time I drink IPA. I still enjoy a good pilsner now and again, just not nearly as often.

[Bruceswar]

If they can win in any setting then they should try playing every setting, im up for a challenge. If they can hold there own and there points during all the different settings then they are truley good

Why should anybody play settings they do not like just to prove they can do it? Everybody has settings they like and choose to play those. These top ranking people have tried others and found they like setting X better than Setting Y. So what? That is there choice. Live and let live. Want a challenge PM any one of them and ask them for a game. Many will be nice enough to play you.

[MajorRT]

Above is further proof that the "Top players are overrated" ( good players who superspecialize in certain game settings for max scores)

[Bruceswar]

Above is further proof that the "Top players are overrated" ( good players who superspecialize in certain game settings for max scores)

This has nothing to do with max scores. Not everybody is like Klobber who sets up games with settings not many like so newer players will join. In fact many of the top players do not even care about the points or rank, they just enjoy playing. Nobody should have to play X settings to prove they are good. People are allowed to play what they like. I just took a look at your games, and I notice something. Most of all of your games that are not 1 vs 1 are Seq Flat rate, or No cards. Seems like you have picked out your settings and are playing them. These are the settings you choose to play, so before you start throwing tomatoes, make sure you are ready to eat some. I did not see where you completed one Assassin game or one freestyle game with more than 1 player. What does all this tell me? Nothing! All this tells me is you enjoy and play certain types of games.

[FabledIntegral]

1. No card games are more dependent on dice + drop than escalating game, which is significantly more dependent on strategy. Sure you can get screwed by having two countries in Oceania, and 3 in Africa, but you can still reposition yourself (will go over it in the next point).

2. If you think that the first 5 turns involve no strategy, that's probably why you're low ranked. It involves moving your armies around, and positioning yourself for prime position. Find out who's weak, who's wasting their armies, and how you can get near them. At the same time, you need to ensure you get a card, and don't attack too many people en route to your destination, lest you lose too many armies yourself and become a target. Also if you see a low rank who IS weak but is apt to attack randomly on whoever is next to them, figure out if it is beneficial enough to stay next to them. Debate on what is more important, moving to a location to get a +2 bonus because you have a card for the territory, or moving into a position that is more advantageous.

3. You need to know when to cash or when not to cash in a casual game. If you have 4 cards, should you cash, or wait for 5? If you wait for five, you can potentially do a midcash the next turn by killing any 3's on the board. However, by not cashing you make yourself a prime target to others who want to kill you and take your cards.

4. Flat Rate is the least strategy type in the entire game. In a 1v1 (on smaller maps), whoever gets the first mixed set will almost always win, assuming the other person does not also get one. It makes it *so* dependent on luck and so devoid of strategy I have stopped playing flat rate games in one player.

5. Unlimited is a preference over anything else. Having chained would hardly alter gameplay, and if you think that high ranked players are "dependent" on that, you are highly mistaken.

6. Going on after point #1, no card games, if played by higher ranks, will generally end in stalemates, because they are smart and don't make retarded moves. However at low ranks, players are so stupid and don't see the bigger picture they just attack who's next to them. I typically get caught in this crossfire. And considering if I play 8 player games with low ranks (who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first"), if I win 3/8 of my 8 player freestyle games I'll probably just break even points wise (I lose about 60 points vs a cook, gain 5), and that's still beating the odds (as you should obviously win 1/8 of your freestyle games statistically).

7. Terminator games are out of the question as then players have a legitimate reason to suicide me as they get more points sacrificing themselves to take me down in the process.

8. Fog of War games is simply a mode that adds luck to the game, and log analyzing, not something I'm fond of. You have to continually look at the log and compare it to the map to be able to predict where they will be, about how many armies they will have had to kill to get to that location, and their strength. Not worth my time.


Any more complaints/bashing? Just another noob that plays 8-player classic speed freestyle unlimited with clickable maps

Apparently you never had a response to this, THEARMY.

EDIT: If it means anything, I went out on a limb and played mass Doodle Assasin games recently. I was hoping to derank whilst enjoying myself. Apparently people in Doodle Assasin are semi-retarded, as I was hardly trying and won 4/7 of my games, thus actually gaining points. I had to try to play dumb (and still win when playing dumb) to actually finally start losing, and I've only won 1/5 or so of my last ones (aka doing something stupid like deploying and attacking utnil you get a 1, or eliminating one of your targets spots asap so that everyone knows who you're going for and his other territory is isolated on the other side of the map...).

Quite simply, as said above in my quotes, I am more than competent to play other game styles (assassin right there). However, Terminator is out of the question, high ranks PROVE that they can OBLITERATE opponents in Doubles/Triples/Quadruples, so what other gametype are you looking for? Terminator? As if. There is not ANY player capable of maintaining a high rank if they play soley terminator games simply as they will have a big shiny target on them.

So what else ARMY? Maps I enjoy are World 2.1 (although my like for it has decreased recently as I find more and more retards playing it and find myself suiciding on retards to just get out of the game), Classic, King of the Mountain, Age of Realms 1/2 (preferably 2), Bamboo Jack, and will also join any standard type of map such as USA/Australia/Middle Earth/Benelux/France/British Isles, etc.

Am I not an all-rounded player? What WOULD you like me to play? I personally don't play doubles, although I know I could just as easily smash my opponent if I had a teammate that would cooperate with a gameplan. I play with both high ranks and low ranks. I'm more than competent in speed freestyle games. I can hold my ground in sequential games although my disdain for a significant advantage to who goes first keeps me away from it. And then don't get me started on flat rate (aka the luck game...).

So yeah... what more do you want...

And even so, note I'm not even saying I'm one of the elite top players, I was just responding to top players being overrated as a whole.

[MajorRT]

Above is further proof that the "Top players are overrated" ( good players who superspecialize in certain game settings for max scores)

This has nothing to do with max scores. Not everybody is like Klobber who sets up games with settings not many like so newer players will join. In fact many of the top players do not even care about the points or rank, they just enjoy playing. Nobody should have to play X settings to prove they are good. People are allowed to play what they like. I just took a look at your games, and I notice something. Most of all of your games that are not 1 vs 1 are Seq Flat rate, or No cards. Seems like you have picked out your settings and are playing them. These are the settings you choose to play, so before you start throwing tomatoes, make sure you are ready to eat some. I did not see where you completed one Assassin game or one freestyle game with more than 1 player. What does all this tell me? Nothing! All this tells me is you enjoy and play certain types of games.

I never said I was a top player; I think that this thread is referring to tho top of the top on page 1, who (for the most part) specialize, for whatever reason, then congratulate eachother in various threads below, or make sure their scores/rank are updated on Johnny's list of all time scores. If people play for fun, why THE NEED to make sure this is recorded for posterity?

[MajorRT]

Also notice that it's us mid-range ranks that are ranting here, not the players in question. I know you and Fabeled and the army are good players.

[THE ARMY]

FabledIntegral you are a well rounded player. You have proven yourself playing all styles and all maps. In fact one of my friends told me about you and how you were the up and coming Conquerer. I give you respect. Now look at your rank. You are a major, a field officer, just as i predicted. I feel that field officers take more risks than upper ranks, (some colonels, but mainly brigs, gens, field marsh.) I never said you were overrated because you aren't, but the risks you take to prove your worthiness isn't the same for some of the higher ranks.

[TaylorSandbek]

Top players are not overrated, but lower players are a lot of times underrated.

[FabledIntegral]

FabledIntegral you are a well rounded player. You have proven yourself playing all styles and all maps. In fact one of my friends told me about you and how you were the up and coming Conquerer. I give you respect. Now look at your rank. You are a major, a field officer, just as i predicted. I feel that field officers take more risks than upper ranks, (some colonels, but mainly brigs, gens, field marsh.) I never said you were overrated because you aren't, but the risks you take to prove your worthiness isn't the same for some of the higher ranks.

Nah I'm deranking. Was a Brigadier 2 days ago. Got within 23 points of a General on two occasions and couldn't quite make it, got really annoyed, and said "f*ck it."

[john9blue]

Almost every player who is Colonel or higher severely limits the types of games that they play (i.e. only team games, only freestyle escalating, only a few maps, etc.). They aren't overrated, so to speak, but they probably aren't having as much fun as someone who plays many different types on many different maps. When they quit Conquer Club they will realize that they have wasted their time by playing for points, not for fun.