The "Conquerer"

[Timminz]

but more important does he have as much fun as i am? i highly doubt it

That's the only thing I "might" disagree with. Who are you to say how much "fun" another player is having. It's seems pretty clear to me that klobber enjoys what he does. Why else would he do it? I know I wouldn't enjoy that very much, but to each his own, right?

that's why i said i highly doubt it and i didn't say he surely isn't having fun

Of course. I just wanted to point that out, because a few times I've seen people trying to make the claim that "player X, isn't having as much fun as me, because of Y".

[jbrettlip]

I came in here, looking to bash others, and found an intelligent discussion. Bravo....it will probably be locked!

[FabledIntegral]

The current lieutenant rating, to me, is hardly different than a Sergeant rating. Even captains are questionable. It's not unless I either know the person, or see a Major status that I'm generally more comfortable around the person.

rank doesn't guarantee skill at all
i've seen a LOT of majors that truly sucked. they made mistakes i didn't make even when i was a new recruit, they played with their heart not their mind, they could not analyze the map, etc.

Yeah, I find ways to suck all the time, and look at my rank...

To me rank doesnt figure in very much as most of the games I play are decided in the first few rounds by dice, deploy, and in team games, how well the teams are connected at crucial points. Everyone talks a great strategy mostly because most players strategies are very similar ex. Classic map - control of Aussie or SA and the game is over. Its all about who does it better, and Ive seen cooks that are very good at controlling the game early.

I've literally NEVER seen a single cook who didn't play of what you would expect as a cook. I've seen a few decent privates, etc. (although rare). Decent sergeants are plentiful, although not so decent sergeants are as well. Yet, concerning cooks, I've never found a decent one. They might know to go for Aussie, but they'll use 100% of their armies to do it, even if it means mowing down 15 armies to get there.

[Scott-Land]

should every premium member not accept a challenge or face embarresment??

do you realize how many PM's people on the top of the ranks get, daily, calling them out for games? do you realize how many people on the top of the ranks don't even check their PM's from people they don't know, because they are just full of game numbers for them to join against lower ranked players, etc? and furthermore, alot of the higher ranked players you dis for only playing team games, may have gotten there by playing team games. team games require their own special skill set, just like freestyle, just like escalating cards, just like no cards. you can't come down on a player for sticking to the type of games they like, and that they are successful at!! keep running your mouth liam, you are amusing.-0

QFT--

[DiM]

The current lieutenant rating, to me, is hardly different than a Sergeant rating. Even captains are questionable. It's not unless I either know the person, or see a Major status that I'm generally more comfortable around the person.

rank doesn't guarantee skill at all
i've seen a LOT of majors that truly sucked. they made mistakes i didn't make even when i was a new recruit, they played with their heart not their mind, they could not analyze the map, etc.

Yeah, I find ways to suck all the time, and look at my rank...

To me rank doesnt figure in very much as most of the games I play are decided in the first few rounds by dice, deploy, and in team games, how well the teams are connected at crucial points. Everyone talks a great strategy mostly because most players strategies are very similar ex. Classic map - control of Aussie or SA and the game is over. Its all about who does it better, and Ive seen cooks that are very good at controlling the game early.

I've literally NEVER seen a single cook who didn't play of what you would expect as a cook. I've seen a few decent privates, etc. (although rare). Decent sergeants are plentiful, although not so decent sergeants are as well. Yet, concerning cooks, I've never found a decent one. They might know to go for Aussie, but they'll use 100% of their armies to do it, even if it means mowing down 15 armies to get there.

believe it or not i have won a triples tourney and one of my team mates was a cook. he had a very good grasp of things, a keen eye for analyzing the map and had solid strategy. it was a pleasure to play with him.

ant there are a lot more examples. many people love speed doodle assassin games. those games are a lottery and 1 day you could be a cook while the next you might be a major all based on luck. but some of those players are really good so their rank will tell you nothing about their skill.
for example i'm pretty sure that if you play 10 speed assassin doodles every day your rank will be much lower than it is now. will that mean you aren't as skilful as you are now?

[FabledIntegral]

The current lieutenant rating, to me, is hardly different than a Sergeant rating. Even captains are questionable. It's not unless I either know the person, or see a Major status that I'm generally more comfortable around the person.

rank doesn't guarantee skill at all
i've seen a LOT of majors that truly sucked. they made mistakes i didn't make even when i was a new recruit, they played with their heart not their mind, they could not analyze the map, etc.

Yeah, I find ways to suck all the time, and look at my rank...

To me rank doesnt figure in very much as most of the games I play are decided in the first few rounds by dice, deploy, and in team games, how well the teams are connected at crucial points. Everyone talks a great strategy mostly because most players strategies are very similar ex. Classic map - control of Aussie or SA and the game is over. Its all about who does it better, and Ive seen cooks that are very good at controlling the game early.

I've literally NEVER seen a single cook who didn't play of what you would expect as a cook. I've seen a few decent privates, etc. (although rare). Decent sergeants are plentiful, although not so decent sergeants are as well. Yet, concerning cooks, I've never found a decent one. They might know to go for Aussie, but they'll use 100% of their armies to do it, even if it means mowing down 15 armies to get there.

believe it or not i have won a triples tourney and one of my team mates was a cook. he had a very good grasp of things, a keen eye for analyzing the map and had solid strategy. it was a pleasure to play with him.

ant there are a lot more examples. many people love speed doodle assassin games. those games are a lottery and 1 day you could be a cook while the next you might be a major all based on luck. but some of those players are really good so their rank will tell you nothing about their skill.
for example i'm pretty sure that if you play 10 speed assassin doodles every day your rank will be much lower than it is now. will that mean you aren't as skilful as you are now?

Everyone kept telling me that... when I was still a Brig I went and played 9 speed doodle assassins and won 5/9... I gained from it even though I lost like 35-40 points per loss, I got like 50 points per win...

Then I deranked and didn't show up to my turns until the end, when teh game was over usually.

Understand your poitn though, whether that was an odd streak of luck, or I'm just naturally talented at those doodle assassins... there are gametypes where I would indeed probably lose ranks fast... although I generally do like a wide variety of games....

I'm like +230 points in World 2.1 games

[SlayerQC]

And yeah i am aware that there ar many players i just described hiding with great ranks in team games mopping up points against who ever is stupid enough to challenge without a praticed team. i.e. cooks, or stupid newbies over awed by the ranks they see they are playing against!

I agree with that, when im looking to play games on my fav maps other than classic, 90% of the games are team games set up by high ranked players with teammates they have played over and over with.
Who joins those games?
Cooks and privates for the most part.
Not much going on on CC other than those trap team games.
I wont join one cuz I know ill be playing with cooks agaisnt coordinated teams.
And if you are the last player to join a team game started by "regular joes", you bet your ass that a highranked coordinated team will join it.
You r doomed from the start if it is a freestyle game as they all play their turn rightaway.
I was dead on round 1 before I could even check the game out once.

Pretty cheesy way to have a high rank.
Of course, their are true players that acquire their points like men, but those are rare.
I guess we need these coordinated team to make this site look busy, which other than classic, is sorta slow.
I merely can join 2 games where I know I stand some sort of chance out of 100 shown when looking for games other than on classic.

[liamo6969]

And yeah i am aware that there ar many players i just described hiding with great ranks in team games mopping up points against who ever is stupid enough to challenge without a praticed team. i.e. cooks, or stupid newbies over awed by the ranks they see they are playing against!

I agree with that, when im looking to play games on my fav maps other than classic, 90% of the games are team games set up by high ranked players with teammates they have played over and over with.
Who joins those games?
Cooks and privates for the most part.
Not much going on on CC other than those trap team games.
I wont join one cuz I know ill be playing with cooks agaisnt coordinated teams.
And if you are the last player to join a team game started by "regular joes", you bet your ass that a highranked coordinated team will join it.
You r doomed from the start if it is a freestyle game as they all play their turn rightaway.
I was dead on round 1 before I could even check the game out once.

Pretty cheesy way to have a high rank.
Of course, their are true players that acquire their points like men, but those are rare.
I guess we need these coordinated team to make this site look busy, which other than classic, is sorta slow.
I merely can join 2 games where I know I stand some sort of chance out of 100 shown when looking for games other than on classic.

Well said,
Will be interesting to see if any of these guys reply,
Because i would bet a big buk that nearly every1 in the top 250 on the scoreboard falls into this category.

[Timminz]

Because i would bet a big buk that nearly every1 in the top 250 on the scoreboard falls into this category.

I think you'd be losing that bet. Sure, most of the players who fit that category are probably in the top 250, but I would say, at least half (probably more) of the first page are not like that.

[FabledIntegral]

And yeah i am aware that there ar many players i just described hiding with great ranks in team games mopping up points against who ever is stupid enough to challenge without a praticed team. i.e. cooks, or stupid newbies over awed by the ranks they see they are playing against!

I agree with that, when im looking to play games on my fav maps other than classic, 90% of the games are team games set up by high ranked players with teammates they have played over and over with.
Who joins those games?
Cooks and privates for the most part.
Not much going on on CC other than those trap team games.
I wont join one cuz I know ill be playing with cooks agaisnt coordinated teams.
And if you are the last player to join a team game started by "regular joes", you bet your ass that a highranked coordinated team will join it.
You r doomed from the start if it is a freestyle game as they all play their turn rightaway.
I was dead on round 1 before I could even check the game out once.

Pretty cheesy way to have a high rank.
Of course, their are true players that acquire their points like men, but those are rare.
I guess we need these coordinated team to make this site look busy, which other than classic, is sorta slow.
I merely can join 2 games where I know I stand some sort of chance out of 100 shown when looking for games other than on classic.

Well said,
Will be interesting to see if any of these guys reply,
Because i would bet a big buk that nearly every1 in the top 250 on the scoreboard falls into this category.

What do you want to bet? I know at least 33% aren't, and if you're using 66% (which I would also guess would be a highly overexaggerated number) would not constitute "nearly everybody."


Looking at the Generals and above, as there are too many Brigs to differentiate...

poo-maker
RashidJelzin
skillerman
Scott-Land
KingofGods
Gwaahjo
Maniacmath


That's 7/13, over 50%, that don't use team games to up their ranking.

[AAFitz]

no one tells anyone what kind of games they should play. If you think you can do better, play the games you want, and show him youre better at the game, but dont think that just because you think you might get lucky and beat him in a game that you somehow are better at the game. The score is a game in and of itself. It requires discipline, experience, energy, skill and patience.

Many jealous players have knocked the [legal] methods that players have claimed the coveted star. Nearly every one whose held it, has had a slightly different strategy, and type of game that they preferred to claim their prize. Sjnap has done an incredible job in his quest, and should be commended for increasing the competition in CC as all conquerers before him have.

There are many paths to the top. Some devote everything towards that goal, and it should be commended. The fact that you dont want to, or think that they somehow owe you a game is ridiculous, and childish. If you want to show your prowess, snatch that star and then you can have all the bragging rights that you want.. until then...

[qeee1]

It is "easier" to move up the board with certain games. If I see a high ranked player in one of my games, I usually check their game history. If it's nearly all team games I mark them down a notch or two in my estimations. Similarly for freestyle.

It's not that these games require less skill, just that they require less "pure risk skill" to accumulate the same amount of points.

If you can manage time well you've got an extra edge in freestyle. Similarly if you've good team management, you'll have an edge with team games. The team edge is exaggerated due to the fact your opponents will rarely have such team strategy being clueless victims in one of CC's cruelest traps.

Anyway say you're completely average skill at risk, then in theory you should win 50:50*. If the extra edge ensures you win 60:40 instead of 50:50 you're obviously gonna accumulate more points for the same level of "pure risk" skill.

so hypothetically your overall win:loss ratio can be seen as being-

pure risk win x time management win x team management win :
pure risk lose x time management lose x team management lose


The problem I see is at the higher end, the amount you can win due to skill more or less levels out; you just can't overcome luck every time, no matter how skillful you are. No matter how good your "pure risk skill", there's gonna be a maximum win ratio assuming normal luck/random opponents. So the extra edge is the only way you can increase the ratio.

Furthermore once you've finely honed your "pure risk skill", it's a lot easier to say pick up some basic team strategy than to further hone that skill, due to the nature of... well skills.**

Now all this is taking ideal circumstances***, but it does provide something of a poorly stated sketch proof for the phenomenon seen in the scoreboard.

I'd also like to note that I'm not saying that the higher ups don't deserve their place. They play the game within the rules so they're perfectly entitled to do what they like. They don't have to accept challenges from anyone.

In conclusion, I play standard sequential, glorify me! Seriously though, ad hominem attacks are not appreciated, and any comments on my character should be made in the congratulations thread.

* or rather (1/number of players):(1-(1/number of players)) but for simplicity I'm setting that as 50:50
** This is an important point... it needs to be expanded upon, but I gotta go to bed.
*** I'm ignoring factors like number of players in games, ignoring subtleties like say turn management in sequential vs. freestyle, and I'm failing to define things like what is team management and how much does it overlap with "pure risk skill"

[lord voldemort]

sigh...i love how he puts us all into the same category....ive been page 1 as well...and i play all kinds of games 1v1, team, freestyle esc...i just have fun...sure i know my strongest by far is team games and i know if i want to climb the scoreboard quickly that i do it by mostly team games and the odd escalating cards win. but who are you to say that i haev to accept challenges from low ranking people...yes i play public games with all ranks...but i can do what ever the hell i want tbh.....
have you also thought that maybe the high ranking players only play with each other cause maybe they are friends and get along easier? they have a love for risk and for playing it well. its enjoyable to play an escalating game with people when some person doesnt auto your 10 in australia to take the +2 bonus

[Timminz]

have you also thought that maybe the high ranking players only play with each other cause maybe they are friends and get along easier?

And, SURPRISE! some people enjoy a bigger challenge, and play private games with other people whom they know to be good.

[owenshooter]

Well said,
Will be interesting to see if any of these guys reply,
Because i would bet a big buk that nearly every1 in the top 250 on the scoreboard falls into this category.

this guy really cracks me up... i hope he shows up in the weekly roundup in fruitcakes thread.. i mean, the allegations he makes are so hilarious, i can barely even breath before i have even come close to finishing them!! he really does his research!!!-0

[lord voldemort]

have you also thought that maybe the high ranking players only play with each other cause maybe they are friends and get along easier?

And, SURPRISE! some people enjoy a bigger challenge, and play private games with other people whom they know to be good.

exactly

[EagleofGreenErth]

It is true that many high ranking players do choose their games carefully, but not all refrain from the public. Only 34 of my 2600+ games have been private and I play many different maps and ranks.

[joecoolfrog]

And yeah i am aware that there ar many players i just described hiding with great ranks in team games mopping up points against who ever is stupid enough to challenge without a praticed team. i.e. cooks, or stupid newbies over awed by the ranks they see they are playing against!

I agree with that, when im looking to play games on my fav maps other than classic, 90% of the games are team games set up by high ranked players with teammates they have played over and over with.
Who joins those games?
Cooks and privates for the most part.
Not much going on on CC other than those trap team games.
I wont join one cuz I know ill be playing with cooks agaisnt coordinated teams.
And if you are the last player to join a team game started by "regular joes", you bet your ass that a highranked coordinated team will join it.
You r doomed from the start if it is a freestyle game as they all play their turn rightaway.
I was dead on round 1 before I could even check the game out once.

Pretty cheesy way to have a high rank.
Of course, their are true players that acquire their points like men, but those are rare.
I guess we need these coordinated team to make this site look busy, which other than classic, is sorta slow.
I merely can join 2 games where I know I stand some sort of chance out of 100 shown when looking for games other than on classic.

Well said,
Will be interesting to see if any of these guys reply,
Because i would bet a big buk that nearly every1 in the top 250 on the scoreboard falls into this category.

I will take that bet - How much ?