Secondly...
Jough wrote:But, he still lost, and I still feel as though he is no better than average. In other words, how do we determine what is average? I give many 3 star ratings because I think some people could have played better, however they weren't horrible. I also receive many ratings that I don't think are fair, but haven't complained because the rater may have a different opinion (Hoodbridge's recent 1 star rating of me, for example). I simply brought to your attention Frostbite because I thought he was abusing the system.
So, where do we draw the line?
This is interesting. Consider if you would, a game of chess. There is no luck in chess. It is all human error vs human cunning. Chess is won by being the surviving player and yet, both players are bound to lose pieces. There's only 1 checkmate in history that can be achieved without conquering an opponent's piece.
In chess, you need to be willing to trade, and be aggressive, but you need to be cunning and know how to get the most out of each trade. Chess is won by causing each "conflict" or "trade" to cause your opponent to lose more value than you do. The value could be pieces upfront, if you are more cunning in setting up your pieces, you can draw him into a trade that causes him to lose more than you do. You may even draw him into a trade that weakens his king's position for just a second in order to make the 1 right move at the 1 right time that ends the game and perform checkmate, even if you are short on pieces.
In a game like chess where it's all about capitalizing on error, this rating system would work.
There are average players... players that play wrecklessly but aggressive and look for trades. They get momentum for a bit but run out of steam and have nothing else they can do because they didn't plan ahead, they just "went with the flow"
There are players that are below average, they move randomly, don't set up chains, don't support their knights or their bishops and bring the queen out alone too early... allowing their opposition to trap the queen or chase it so far back into retreat that by the time you can move another piece, your opponent already has 4 or 5 pieces developped on the board just waiting to ambush whatever you move forward.
Then there are players that are exceptional. They advance, they attack the center of the board, they don't chase trades right away if they can help it, they enforce the positions. They bring their knights out to support, they bring the bishops to monitor the center, they castle bringing the rooks to their rear flanks to provide even more support. Often the game between 2 exceptional players can go several rounds with only 1 or 2 pieces being traded as both players move forward and move back, teasing an attack... then withdrawing attempting to lure their opponent into a trap.
In Chess... 1 star... 3 stars... 5 stars... perfect rating system. This conquerclub rating system for chess would be perfect because the results show the kind of player you are. A reckless player may lose in round 3 or round 33... it doesn't change the rating they would have achieved, they can't get lucky if they play reckless.
In RISK however... here on conquerclub, dice play too big of a roll (aha see what I did there-... nevermind
) to say that because someone failed in a few attacks that they played bad. Someone who has above average game tactics will end up with below-average results if the defending dice castrate them.
How do I rate? I give the benifit of the doubt, unless 100% absolutely ... irrevocably prove-able, I rate 5 stars. I assume they know what they are planning to do to win and I hope to come out on top. I have no delusions about the roll the dice play and I know that in terms of what I want and what my opponent wants... I try to emphasize their chance of bad luck. I make my deployments by judging what I would do if I were them, then trying to interrupt it. I deploy hoping to up their chances of failed dice and thus aquiring goals of my own.
I rate 5 stars as a general rule unless you show me that you had no idea what you were doing. Unless you show me that you were rude, arrogant and unpleasant. If you tell me I have to move 50 times in 5 minutes because you have time to play now and I should put my life on hold... in these cases I will rate less.
Here's one scenario for you to consider hun.
- Your opponent is dominant in australia holding 3/4, you are dominant in SA holding 3/4... your opponent deploys on the 1 area that you don't have in SA so that he can interrupt you instead of taking his bonus right away.
Now... this is the perverbial 2-face coin. He could have deployed on australia and had a better chance of taking his bonus... and leaving you the same chance... or he could have deployed on your area making it harder for you to take your obvious move successfully. He deploys to intterupt you.
People have a sense that a game "should" go a certain way based on what they see in the first few minutes. They look at the map, assess it and say: "Ok, I'm going to do this... he should do this." and if they have a different idea... oh dear. Above all else, heaven forbid their different idea conflict with what "you" wanted to do with "your" empire. This mere assessment of the game... this thought that you know what you should do and what they should do can't be trusted because you are looking at it hoping for your win, you are thinking "This is what needs to happen for me to win" and they are thinking the same. Hence you will never agree on what "Good" gameplay is for both particular players.
When you can never agree, it becomes hostile whent he first player gets accused of "not knowing what they're doing" because their accuser is saying they know better. Not intentionally... but according to Frostbite, you're rating of his gameplay as just about average conflicts with his self-analysis that he did everything he could to win.
I give 5 stars. You demonstrate that you are following a plan... any plan. That you know what you want and you're trying to do it... that you know what makes me dangerous and try to stop me... you show me these things and I will rate you 5 stars. Even if you make some moves I don't understand but I can somehow make sense of what you "might" be thinking? I'll still rate you 5 stars.
If you curse and yell and scream and go off your head about a round that went wrong... or you admit to throwing a game, or you let your emotions dictate irrational play that I can't comprehend (and I am very very patient when it comes to analyzing strategy) then I will rate accordingly.
You have to be exceptionally difficult to not get 5 stars from me.
Jasmine
). I've actually gone to the extent of writing an application that will give the statistical possibilities of lost troops on a particular battle. Yeah... I get that bored...
Jasmine
