TOP PLAYERS OVERRATED!!

[THE ARMY]

OMG is that crazy mexican, welcome back sonny jim

Farming is for sissies, in any game, and thats no lie.

KWON SU

[THE ARMY]

now i know that these guys do play some tough oppenents but this is probably my favorite game right here 3010729

[lt.pie]

now i know that these guys do play some tough oppenents but this is probably my favorite game right here 3010729

This is personal favourite- Game 3526647

[chaosfactor]

I find it Hilarious That Top Ranked Players that have achieved a rank they are happy with, shit there pants when it comes to a real contest.
Most Players like this Sit in Trebles and Quad teams, with similarly ranked players, playing in conditions that they prefer, waiting for lower ranked un organised muppets to come along to hand them points on a silver plate.

Hardly any adventure in that is there?

Reminds me of Klobber Tactiks

[Fruitcake]

Reminds me of Klobber Tactiks

Is that a board game? Sounds like it.

[THE ARMY]

i don't even think its going to be an honor when i make the first page of the scoreboard. its like watching "Band of Brother" and reminds me of when the Major dude (dont know his name) was commanding all those troops in the woods then in the city and everyone hated him cuz he was a high rank but had little skill at leading.

[THE ARMY]

Now a lot of them are getting better, in fact the top 10 are really really good. Heck most of them on the page are really really good, but there are still some amonst the top players, and they know who they are, who can't stand up to the other top players

[Incandenza]

Has it ever occurred to you that you're overrated? Perhaps the first page of the scoreboard shall forever be barred to you, and your rank will slowly drop, and you'll be able to scream to the high heavens about how overrated the top players are, about how unfair their play style is. And no one will ever be able to accuse you of hypocrisy, since after all, no one will ever confuse you for a top player.

Or, y'know, you could just keep playing and having fun, safe in the assumption that practically everyone else here is having fun as well, and stop venting your spleen at strangers on a casual online gaming site. That would be my recommendation.

[maxatstuy]

Game 3779269

I think THE ARMY is about to make his way onto the first page

[MajorRT]

He's not over-rated, I can assure you. If anything, he's undrrated,given the widespread use and tactics of farming, faster computers in freestyle, secret multi's, friends not attacking and various other cheap and easy ways to make your score higher...

[maxatstuy]

He's not over-rated, I can assure you. If anything, he's undrrated,given the widespread use and tactics of farming, faster computers in freestyle, secret multi's, friends not attacking and various other cheap and easy ways to make your score higher...

Whether or not THE ARMY is good or not, farming that n00b means that he is inflating his score- at least that is what I am to assume by his earlier posts- hence he is overrated

People who have multis are caught and removed from the scoreboard. I am sure that there are very few, if any, on the front page of the scoreboard, and while I agree that some people break the rules by using secret diplomacy to win a great amount of points, they too will eventually be caught. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is in reference to farming, I dont believe that multis and secret alliances should be included

[Jeff Hardy]

People who have multis are caught and removed from the scoreboard

and they sometimes get score resets so even if they do buy themselves back, they didnt gain anything

[THE ARMY]

MAx look at the players i play on 1v1 games compared to the 1v1 games you play. I play chefs up to Generals, you on the other hand seem to focus around one particular rank. That is the difference between me and you, i know i can beat generals, colonols, majors, captains, lt., sgt. so on and so forth but you on the other hand only really know how to beat noobs and lower ranks. YOu earned your points by farming, i on the other hand am not even close to being a farmer.


I've played 2 games vs. noobs, you on the other hand have...well...we'll say a few more than that.

He's not over-rated, I can assure you. If anything, he's undrrated,given the widespread use and tactics of farming, faster computers in freestyle, secret multi's, friends not attacking and various other cheap and easy ways to make your score higher...

Whether or not THE ARMY is good or not, farming that n00b means that he is inflating his score- at least that is what I am to assume by his earlier posts- hence he is overrated

People who have multis are caught and removed from the scoreboard. I am sure that there are very few, if any, on the front page of the scoreboard, and while I agree that some people break the rules by using secret diplomacy to win a great amount of points, they too will eventually be caught. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is in reference to farming, I dont believe that multis and secret alliances should be included

[THE ARMY]

and im not getting angry or anything, i love this game and am very happy, im just pointing out things that others should know. You Icandenza have earned your spot at the top.

Has it ever occurred to you that you're overrated? Perhaps the first page of the scoreboard shall forever be barred to you, and your rank will slowly drop, and you'll be able to scream to the high heavens about how overrated the top players are, about how unfair their play style is. And no one will ever be able to accuse you of hypocrisy, since after all, no one will ever confuse you for a top player.

Or, y'know, you could just keep playing and having fun, safe in the assumption that practically everyone else here is having fun as well, and stop venting your spleen at strangers on a casual online gaming site. That would be my recommendation.

[RiskTycoon]

this coming from a player who just joined a game against a ? ... truly honorable

[THE ARMY]

the second game i joined with a noob in my 365 or so 1v1 games isn't that bad is it?

this coming from a player who just joined a game against a ? ... truly honorable

[RiskTycoon]

only for players that run around and say how great they are because they don't farm ..... let's also point out that farming seems to be associated with players that create public games that noobs join and get crushed ... what term do we have for players that seek out ?s to crush ? I could think of a few ...

practice what you preach ..... and you should probably edit your post up there from chefs to ?s .... why be a fibber too

look i'm just splitting hairs with you here obviously ... but to say what you did after joining that game ... to me you should have thought about that first .... 1 game or 100 ... if you really felt that way you wouldn't have joined that game ... i mean seriously, are you going to tell me you joined it for the challenge ? come now.... let's be real here ...

honestly, i could care less ... just felt like busting your chops .. I'm kinda bored at work

[THE ARMY]

i look for one particular game when i play 1v1 to minimize luck, i look for Escalating and Unlimited. I also look for maps that im familiar with. Now finding anyone playing a 1v1 game I am familiar with is hard enough, especially one with escalating and unlimited. The only reason i joined that game was because it had two qualities i liked, escalating and a good map, that is the only reason i joined it.

only for players that run around and say how great they are because they don't farm ..... let's also point out that farming seems to be associated with players that create public games that noobs join and get crushed ... what term do we have for players that seek out ?s to crush ? I could think of a few ...

practice what you preach ..... and you should probably edit your post up there from chefs to ?s .... why be a fibber too

look i'm just splitting hairs with you here obviously ... but to say what you did after joining that game ... to me you should have thought about that first .... 1 game or 100 ... if you really felt that way you wouldn't have joined that game ... i mean seriously, are you going to tell me you joined it for the challenge ? come now.... let's be real here ...

honestly, i could care less ... just felt like busting your chops .. I'm kinda bored at work

[RiskTycoon]

oh so you farm? only looking for games with settings that you perceive as less luck on maps that you are well trained at with ?s in them ....

Oh i see ... makes perfect sense now that you say it that way

[AAFitz]

This is a game. The score is a measurement of the game. Gaining points is a score in and of itself.

Many have made this arguement before saying that the top players get too much credit, when they are the ones assuming that the score=ability exactly. It does not. Score does not equal ability, and it certainly does not equal overall ability. It really never has. There are over one hundred maps, several settings, and a near infininte combination of opponent, map, setting, speed, etc which means the score will never ever represent anything except who is better at gaining points. It will never mean that they will beat every single player on every type of setting, except if a player actually commits himself to winning in every type of arena there is.

To those who think luck is even a factor over any kind of a long term, are just naive to a point not worth explaining, but using me for an example... I have a -1000 point map rank on doodle, and a +2400 on world map 2.1. My luck is not better on world 2.1, my overall ability does not change more than an inperceptable fraction after 4000 games at this point, so the only thing my score represents, is essentially how often I play world, and how often I play doodle. My score is determined by my game choice, which is the absolute underlying basis of the score, and what it has always represented.

That being said, anyone who thinks the players who are good enough to specialize in one setting or area to get to the top, arent exceptional players who need luck or tricks to play the game, are deluding themselves also. Some have switched from one specialty to another to another with incredible success. If they decided to play 100 doodle assassin games against low ranking players and lost 2000 points, it would not mean they instantly became worse players, it would only mean they chose to play different games.

If you want to evaluate the exact skill of a player, you have to take into consideration many, and possibly all factors. Certainly anyone that can play this game with any degree of skill, can see that intuitively after only a few games. Those that cant, typically complain about it.

[Mr Changsha]

This is a game. The score is a measurement of the game. Gaining points is a score in and of itself.

Many have made this arguement before saying that the top players get too much credit, when they are the ones assuming that the score=ability exactly. It does not. Score does not equal ability, and it certainly does not equal overall ability. It really never has. There are over one hundred maps, several settings, and a near infininte combination of opponent, map, setting, speed, etc which means the score will never ever represent anything except who is better at gaining points. It will never mean that they will beat every single player on every type of setting, except if a player actually commits himself to winning in every type of arena there is.

To those who think luck is even a factor over any kind of a long term, are just naive to a point not worth explaining, but using me for an example... I have a -1000 point map rank on doodle, and a +2400 on world map 2.1. My luck is not better on world 2.1, my overall ability does not change more than an inperceptable fraction after 4000 games at this point, so the only thing my score represents, is essentially how often I play world, and how often I play doodle. My score is determined by my game choice, which is the absolute underlying basis of the score, and what it has always represented.

That being said, anyone who thinks the players who are good enough to specialize in one setting or area to get to the top, arent exceptional players who need luck or tricks to play the game, are deluding themselves also. Some have switched from one specialty to another to another with incredible success. If they decided to play 100 doodle assassin games against low ranking players and lost 2000 points, it would not mean they instantly became worse players, it would only mean they chose to play different games.

If you want to evaluate the exact skill of a player, you have to take into consideration many, and possibly all factors. Certainly anyone that can play this game with any degree of skill, can see that intuitively after only a few games. Those that cant, typically complain about it.

Excellent post.

I would just add that we all know that there are some players that (pretty much) only equate ability with score. There really is nothing wrong with that, if it makes them happy and they aren't bothering anyone else.

With regards to score, AA Fitz is quite right. My score (and possibly his as well) will reflect any ability we might have at a very narrow selection of games and game types. Ask me to play away from what I know at this point - say escalating which I am happily ignorent of - and my score will drop and quickly reflect my ability at this new style...if I continue to play it.

Finally and with regards to high rankers avoiding losing points, I have recently played a number of triples on classic and always chose the highest ranking teams I could find. I was very pleased to see that the majority of these players didn't foe me or my team mates, didn't express any annoyance at playing a major and two privates and seemed happy to take us on in 'open combat'. I might also add that my team learned a lot from those games and, I would hope, we played some of them half-decently.

So not all high-rankers are trying to avoid lower ranks. I myself (though far from a very high rank) continue to set up open 8 man sequential games and play who shows up. I take the view that I benefited when my rank was lower from huge point gains against officers and if someone does it to me then fair enough. I can assure everyone that if (or when!) I reach that first page my policy will not change a bit.

[THE ARMY]

you both put it very nicely. I too agree with the selection of game determining point value. I have realized that choosing game types that place luck at its peak usually bring my score down so i try to avoid them (i.e. Flat rate, adjacent, chained, maps with small bonuses, sequential in larger games) I am instead tying to play team games which are probably the best setting to minimize luck and maximize my point gain.

I officially take back my comments about TOP PLAYERS BEING OVERRATED, because when you look at it, we are all overrated due to the game styles we choose.

Though I do believe that there are some who "have earned their points due to strategic skill at playing the game" and some who "have earned their points at strategic skill in choosing the game"

This is a game. The score is a measurement of the game. Gaining points is a score in and of itself.

Many have made this arguement before saying that the top players get too much credit, when they are the ones assuming that the score=ability exactly. It does not. Score does not equal ability, and it certainly does not equal overall ability. It really never has. There are over one hundred maps, several settings, and a near infininte combination of opponent, map, setting, speed, etc which means the score will never ever represent anything except who is better at gaining points. It will never mean that they will beat every single player on every type of setting, except if a player actually commits himself to winning in every type of arena there is.

To those who think luck is even a factor over any kind of a long term, are just naive to a point not worth explaining, but using me for an example... I have a -1000 point map rank on doodle, and a +2400 on world map 2.1. My luck is not better on world 2.1, my overall ability does not change more than an inperceptable fraction after 4000 games at this point, so the only thing my score represents, is essentially how often I play world, and how often I play doodle. My score is determined by my game choice, which is the absolute underlying basis of the score, and what it has always represented.

That being said, anyone who thinks the players who are good enough to specialize in one setting or area to get to the top, arent exceptional players who need luck or tricks to play the game, are deluding themselves also. Some have switched from one specialty to another to another with incredible success. If they decided to play 100 doodle assassin games against low ranking players and lost 2000 points, it would not mean they instantly became worse players, it would only mean they chose to play different games.

If you want to evaluate the exact skill of a player, you have to take into consideration many, and possibly all factors. Certainly anyone that can play this game with any degree of skill, can see that intuitively after only a few games. Those that cant, typically complain about it.

Excellent post.

I would just add that we all know that there are some players that (pretty much) only equate ability with score. There really is nothing wrong with that, if it makes them happy and they aren't bothering anyone else.

With regards to score, AA Fitz is quite right. My score (and possibly his as well) will reflect any ability we might have at a very narrow selection of games and game types. Ask me to play away from what I know at this point - say escalating which I am happily ignorent of - and my score will drop and quickly reflect my ability at this new style...if I continue to play it.

Finally and with regards to high rankers avoiding losing points, I have recently played a number of triples on classic and always chose the highest ranking teams I could find. I was very pleased to see that the majority of these players didn't foe me or my team mates, didn't express any annoyance at playing a major and two privates and seemed happy to take us on in 'open combat'. I might also add that my team learned a lot from those games and, I would hope, we played some of them half-decently.

So not all high-rankers are trying to avoid lower ranks. I myself (though far from a very high rank) continue to set up open 8 man sequential games and play who shows up. I take the view that I benefited when my rank was lower from huge point gains against officers and if someone does it to me then fair enough. I can assure everyone that if (or when!) I reach that first page my policy will not change a bit.

[White Moose]

i look for one particular game when i play 1v1 to minimize luck, i look for Escalating and Unlimited.

FYI, having unlimited fortification on normal maps is like giving away the win to whoever starts. That is if your opponent knows what hes doing. Against bad players, then unlimited is really easy to win with.

But in freestyle speed, then i agree that having unlimited minimize the luck.

[THE ARMY]

but since you only start the game 50% of the time it evens out. Now on the other hand if you play chained or adjacent in 1v1 and the other player gets good position or you get poor position then you're screwed either way even if you go first. I used to play Classic adjacent and chained as well but so many times the other opponent would start with a bonus or an easy go at a bonus and there is nothing you can do about it! very frustrating.

i look for one particular game when i play 1v1 to minimize luck, i look for Escalating and Unlimited.

FYI, having unlimited fortification on normal maps is like giving away the win to whoever starts. That is if your opponent knows what hes doing. Against bad players, then unlimited is really easy to win with.

But in freestyle speed, then i agree that having unlimited minimize the luck.

[porkenbeans]

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!!!?!!?!!?!

Those players that you refer to are farmers. They join games against new players that start freestyle games out of ignorance, because it is the default setting. They beat them easily, and a great number just deadbeat anyway. Because of this Mickey Mouse scoring system, these non skilled "RISK" players are able to steal the seats of the truly good Risk players.