King_Herpes wrote:I didn't necessarily think I'd win this game the other day.. Game 3850740
Would you call that game a risk?
OMG you only got 35 points from that

i would have got about 1000
Moderator: Community Team
King_Herpes wrote:I didn't necessarily think I'd win this game the other day.. Game 3850740
Would you call that game a risk?
mpjh wrote:You can't blush, you have a wooden face.
THE ARMY wrote:King it is hard to win the amount of game you play. You have earned your rank, BUT personally i think that other ranks like Scott-Land deserve to be at the top or within the top 3, players like him are truley great at many settings and at many different ranks. Personally i do not agree with the way you and Max gain your points, but don't get angry its just me.
I love this map. And it gives me a good idea...OnlyAmbrose wrote:Real men play World 2.1, 6-8 players, flat rate or no cards.
(and fog-of-war if you're extra manly)
THE ARMY wrote:King it is hard to win the amount of game you play. You have earned your rank, BUT personally i think that other ranks like Scott-Land deserve to be at the top or within the top 3, players like him are truley great at many settings and at many different ranks. Personally i do not agree with the way you and Max gain your points, but don't get angry its just me.
OnlyAmbrose wrote:Real men play World 2.1, 6-8 players, flat rate or no cards.
(and fog-of-war if you're extra manly)
porkenbeans wrote:I love this map. And it gives me a good idea...OnlyAmbrose wrote:Real men play World 2.1, 6-8 players, flat rate or no cards.
(and fog-of-war if you're extra manly)
What if we had a game or two on World 2.1.
With the people in this thread. I see a wide variety of ranks represented from both sides.
We could make it teams or standard.
King_Herpes wrote:THE ARMY wrote:King it is hard to win the amount of game you play. You have earned your rank, BUT personally i think that other ranks like Scott-Land deserve to be at the top or within the top 3, players like him are truley great at many settings and at many different ranks. Personally i do not agree with the way you and Max gain your points, but don't get angry its just me.
Does everyone have to follow this guy around and powder his ass? Yes I agree, and he has been #1 before not to long ago. Surely he could get back up into the top 3(He was less than a month ago) and perhaps even reclaim the balloon. However he has chosen to play other games and he isn't concerned with it at the moment I can assure you.
If I didn't get my points this way, I would find another way to do it. It would just take me longer. Much much longer. I am conscious of all ways to obtain them. I've studied an endless amount of gaining strategies and am very capable of mimicking them. I know you don't agree with the way I do things but that's of no concern to me. It's the fastest way to reach the goal I wanted to reach. Unlike the lot of you, I don't plan on wasting my time on an online game for years to come. I set my goals, I reach them at a set pace, then move on with my life and the next set of goals.
Angry with you? Do you not see that I'm practically the only one who is still being humorous? Nobody on this whole site could actually upset me for longer than a minute. It's a game. Composed of many unique people with endless differences in opinion. No matter what you do or say, there are always going to be those who disagree.
jarrett155 wrote:i wonder what would happen if waterloo and all points ever gained/lost on it were removed:P
jarrett155 wrote:i wonder what would happen if waterloo and all points ever gained/lost on it were removed:P
jarrett155 wrote::P and you would have under 1000 points:P
The mistake is yours. There are a lot of statistics there. and you can even arrange them as you wish. There is a whole new world of information there. For the nerdy types and all other types as well.Mr Changsha wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:Real men play World 2.1, 6-8 players, flat rate or no cards.
(and fog-of-war if you're extra manly)
The most sensible thing written over the last 5 pages I've just ploughed through!
Great thread this and I (mercifully for you all I am sure) have very little to add.
However...
The chap with the psychotic cat for an avatar (porkenbeans?) is making the tremendous mistake of choosing a single stat with which to judge all players. It just so happens that stat happens to be the one which portrays him in the best light.
I suppose it is a form of selective reasoning, and max don't start quoting your high school health books at me again...I don't doubt my terminology is probably flawed at the US high school level!![]()
It seems this thread has moved through its early, immature phase in which ALL top players were overrated, to a point now where SOME players are definitely overrated and we better all work out which players are the overrated ones.
Delicious!
What we need now are stats people, stats! We need some nerdy type with time on his hands to start posting stats on games played, games won, map rank, maps played, volume of games per day, average number of players played in each game (watch the psychotic cat plummet out of contention) and even time spent on the site...That nerdy type then needs to come up with some sort of equation, which other nerdy types can also argue about for pages and, in the end, we'll all be even less sure of what makes a top player overrated or not!
That is exactly my contention . You are not the best payer here. NOT even close. So, NO I don't respect you as a player. I would however, do so, if they were to give a tag to your crown. Something like, KING OF THE COOKS. ...sugar nipples.King_Herpes wrote:porkenbeans wrote:I love this map. And it gives me a good idea...OnlyAmbrose wrote:Real men play World 2.1, 6-8 players, flat rate or no cards.
(and fog-of-war if you're extra manly)
What if we had a game or two on World 2.1.
With the people in this thread. I see a wide variety of ranks represented from both sides.
We could make it teams or standard.
Yay! Then we could all put aside our differences, come over to my house, and share some hearty laughs over a cup of hot chocolate with a candy cane. Afterwards, maybe I could walk you out to your car Porker where we could have a moment of understanding and exchange a much needed hand shake.
Perhaps when you show a modicum of respect for me will I oblige into said game. Until that day, keep your hopes up sugar nipples.
porkenbeans wrote:That is exactly my contention . You are not the best payer here. NOT even close. So, NO I don't respect you as a player. I would however, do so, if they were to give a tag to your crown. Something like, KING OF THE COOKS. ...sugar nipples.
porkenbeans wrote:The mistake is yours. There are a lot of statistics there. and you can even arrange them as you wish. There is a whole new world of information there. For the nerdy types and all other types as well.Mr Changsha wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:Real men play World 2.1, 6-8 players, flat rate or no cards.
(and fog-of-war if you're extra manly)
The most sensible thing written over the last 5 pages I've just ploughed through!
Great thread this and I (mercifully for you all I am sure) have very little to add.
However...
The chap with the psychotic cat for an avatar (porkenbeans?) is making the tremendous mistake of choosing a single stat with which to judge all players. It just so happens that stat happens to be the one which portrays him in the best light.
I suppose it is a form of selective reasoning, and max don't start quoting your high school health books at me again...I don't doubt my terminology is probably flawed at the US high school level!![]()
It seems this thread has moved through its early, immature phase in which ALL top players were overrated, to a point now where SOME players are definitely overrated and we better all work out which players are the overrated ones.
Delicious!
What we need now are stats people, stats! We need some nerdy type with time on his hands to start posting stats on games played, games won, map rank, maps played, volume of games per day, average number of players played in each game (watch the psychotic cat plummet out of contention) and even time spent on the site...That nerdy type then needs to come up with some sort of equation, which other nerdy types can also argue about for pages and, in the end, we'll all be even less sure of what makes a top player overrated or not!
Your own stats are good. It is very Impressive that you could achieve such a high rank in only 100 games.
Do you have Firefox ?Mr Changsha wrote:porkenbeans wrote:The mistake is yours. There are a lot of statistics there. and you can even arrange them as you wish. There is a whole new world of information there. For the nerdy types and all other types as well.Mr Changsha wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:Real men play World 2.1, 6-8 players, flat rate or no cards.
(and fog-of-war if you're extra manly)
The most sensible thing written over the last 5 pages I've just ploughed through!
Great thread this and I (mercifully for you all I am sure) have very little to add.
However...
The chap with the psychotic cat for an avatar (porkenbeans?) is making the tremendous mistake of choosing a single stat with which to judge all players. It just so happens that stat happens to be the one which portrays him in the best light.
I suppose it is a form of selective reasoning, and max don't start quoting your high school health books at me again...I don't doubt my terminology is probably flawed at the US high school level!![]()
It seems this thread has moved through its early, immature phase in which ALL top players were overrated, to a point now where SOME players are definitely overrated and we better all work out which players are the overrated ones.
Delicious!
What we need now are stats people, stats! We need some nerdy type with time on his hands to start posting stats on games played, games won, map rank, maps played, volume of games per day, average number of players played in each game (watch the psychotic cat plummet out of contention) and even time spent on the site...That nerdy type then needs to come up with some sort of equation, which other nerdy types can also argue about for pages and, in the end, we'll all be even less sure of what makes a top player overrated or not!
Your own stats are good. It is very Impressive that you could achieve such a high rank in only 100 games.
Well of course my stats are great!![]()
Sadly I have neither the time, wit or desire to work out all of those stats and I suspect very few people would. I don't even have map rank!
However, I do like using the game finder to check out my stats on various maps and settings. Just me, a lap top and my mobile phone's calculator and I'm in la la land...
lgoasklucyl wrote:Wouldn't it be great if someone just organized a goddamn tournament and top, say, 15-25 players scoreboard joined. It could utilize a variety of game types and matches to rule out any chance factor, then whoever took the tournament could be the 'best' and everyone could stop throwing down over it? Could be a recurring tournament so one person couldn't sit on top permanently, but it sure would be fun to watch![]()
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users