Moderator: Community Team
Bruceswar wrote:A quick list of legit people..
As Code said...
Scott-land and Poomaker ... Poo was likely the most well rounded player to ever play CC.
I know some will not agree with me, but Herpes was great on City Mogul and made number 1 doing it.
Sjnap
KP
TheBest217
All these people I listed are legit.. I missed a few likely.
Rabbit is underrated since some of his past actions were less than favorable, but he is killer player.
I can only speak on those who I have played with or vs.
swimmerdude99 wrote:do you consider ljex a legit conqueror?
Bruceswar wrote:A quick list of legit people..
As Code said...
Scott-land and Poomaker ... Poo was likely the most well rounded player to ever play CC.
I know some will not agree with me, but Herpes was great on City Mogul and made number 1 doing it.
Sjnap
KP
TheBest217
All these people I listed are legit.. I missed a few likely.
Rabbit is underrated since some of his past actions were less than favorable, but he is killer player.
I can only speak on those who I have played with or vs.
Gabriel13 wrote:Bruceswar wrote:A quick list of legit people..
As Code said...
Scott-land and Poomaker ... Poo was likely the most well rounded player to ever play CC.
I know some will not agree with me, but Herpes was great on City Mogul and made number 1 doing it.
Sjnap
KP
TheBest217
All these people I listed are legit.. I missed a few likely.
Rabbit is underrated since some of his past actions were less than favorable, but he is killer player.
I can only speak on those who I have played with or vs.
Herpes also made the highest score in CC history doing it. Now that's something!
Mr Changsha wrote:Ahunda would be a worthy conqueror. Looking at his last 100 games and his current score I can see a player who is truly, without question, superior to almost all of us.
As I said, a worthy conqueror.
There haven't been many. Those early freestyle 8 man standard conquerors had the whiff of game-throwing (controversial maybe but that is my view nonetheless), the 1vs1 freestyle conquerors preyed on the weak and while their performance could be respected -as few of us could do it - one knew that if you played them sequentially they weren't much better than 2500 level players, if at all. The 8 man casual freestyle conquerors were a mixed bunch; one or two seemed fairly legit. but others frankly shamed the site and all of them were far too narrow in their game selections. Again, you could place them on dubs, trips or quads and they would more than likely be nothing special.
There have been a few great conquerors...sadly most of them have ranged from tedious specialists on horribly skewed settings, to farmers, to secret diplomacists, to multis, to ranchers.
It is all very depressing.
codeblue1018 wrote:
Lol, are you serious? All those names Bruce and I mentioned on the 8player games were without a doubt legit; there were no game throwing in any way shape or form; the game chat clearly proves this notion, lol not too mention, I was in many of those games. As far as putting those players in team games, whether dubs, trips; everyone of those guys were above and beyond the normal, casual team player. I have no idea if you played games with us back then Changsha, but if you did, you wouldn't have A. Made those comments and B. know that these players were elite in every facet while having zero controversy to their names.
codeblue1018 wrote:
Lol, are you serious? All those names Bruce and I mentioned on the 8player games were without a doubt legit; there were no game throwing in any way shape or form; the game chat clearly proves this notion, lol not too mention, I was in many of those games. As far as putting those players in team games, whether dubs, trips; everyone of those guys were above and beyond the normal, casual team player. I have no idea if you played games with us back then Changsha, but if you did, you wouldn't have A. Made those comments and B. know that these players were elite in every facet while having zero controversy to their names.
Funkyterrance wrote:What would be cool would be if these games that decided the conqueror were more public, like a one a week occurrence speed game where everyone on cc could watch and make their own judgments. There could even be a thread dedicated to discussing the latest match.
NoSurvivors wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:What would be cool would be if these games that decided the conqueror were more public, like a one a week occurrence speed game where everyone on cc could watch and make their own judgments. There could even be a thread dedicated to discussing the latest match.
Cool idea, but then it would be just a bunch of players helping the other member playing vs the conqueror.. however if it was manditory (if the conq wanted) for it to be foggy.. then yeah maybe
Agent 86 wrote:codeblue1018 wrote:
Lol, are you serious? All those names Bruce and I mentioned on the 8player games were without a doubt legit; there were no game throwing in any way shape or form; the game chat clearly proves this notion, lol not too mention, I was in many of those games. As far as putting those players in team games, whether dubs, trips; everyone of those guys were above and beyond the normal, casual team player. I have no idea if you played games with us back then Changsha, but if you did, you wouldn't have A. Made those comments and B. know that these players were elite in every facet while having zero controversy to their names.
I wasn't around in circa 2007-2008 codeblue, think Mr C was but he probably was just learning the ropes and didn't really know what it took to be conqueror back then ( don't quote me on that, he may well have ). But since I've been around mostly what he says is true. Especially in recent times. To me the reason we have had so much controversy is because of the way the scoreboard operates. It leans itself to a player who only plays 1 or 2 particular maps with very strategic game play, so doesn't give a true picture of what a conqueror should be. The conqueror should be well rounded on many maps and settings. We all know of many players on this site who take on anyone anytime in a diverse range of maps and settings who hold down either General status and or Brig Status. They are the true conquerors of this site but can't quite get to the ultimate spot because of the way the scoreboard works.
I used to look at the scoreboard in my early days and admire some of the scores that conqueror's achieved, I still think KH, Scott-land, Poomaker were worthy of the title. Also I loved the way KH posted, was very humorous and with a touch of real class.
DoomYoshi wrote:Whoever has been banned the most.
Whoever has the most rules created in response to their behavior.
Emmdizzle.
That's my short list.
Shannon Apple wrote:Honestly, I look at what they have medals wise. A conquerer with only 2 or 3 medals is not a good all round player and probably would be fleeced of his points by any one of us outside of his comfort settings.
We could all perfect one map, one set of settings and race to the top score, but where's the fun in that?
That's why I think the conquerer position should come with a minimum medals requirement. It would force them to play more maps, more settings and become a better player on their way to the top.
codeblue1018 wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:Ahunda would be a worthy conqueror. Looking at his last 100 games and his current score I can see a player who is truly, without question, superior to almost all of us.
As I said, a worthy conqueror.
There haven't been many. Those early freestyle 8 man standard conquerors had the whiff of game-throwing (controversial maybe but that is my view nonetheless), the 1vs1 freestyle conquerors preyed on the weak and while their performance could be respected -as few of us could do it - one knew that if you played them sequentially they weren't much better than 2500 level players, if at all. The 8 man casual freestyle conquerors were a mixed bunch; one or two seemed fairly legit. but others frankly shamed the site and all of them were far too narrow in their game selections. Again, you could place them on dubs, trips or quads and they would more than likely be nothing special.
There have been a few great conquerors...sadly most of them have ranged from tedious specialists on horribly skewed settings, to farmers, to secret diplomacists, to multis, to ranchers.
It is all very depressing.
Lol, are you serious? All those names Bruce and I mentioned on the 8player games were without a doubt legit; there were no game throwing in any way shape or form; the game chat clearly proves this notion, lol not too mention, I was in many of those games. As far as putting those players in team games, whether dubs, trips; everyone of those guys were above and beyond the normal, casual team player. I have no idea if you played games with us back then Changsha, but if you did, you wouldn't have A. Made those comments and B. know that these players were elite in every facet while having zero controversy to their names.
Shannon Apple wrote:That's why I think the conquerer position should come with a minimum medals requirement. It would force them to play more maps, more settings and become a better player on their way to the top.
NoSurvivors wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Whoever has been banned the most.
Whoever has the most rules created in response to their behavior.
Emmdizzle.
That's my short list.
So GLG, GLG.. and Emdizzle? lol
DoomYoshi wrote:Basically, I think anyone who can figure out an exploit before there is a rule against it and exploit it so that a rule is created for it, this is exactly what life, and CC, is about.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users