More "proof" that the scoring system is rigged

[jpliberty]

No one who here has defended the current rank/scoring system has yet answered the very simple, direct and obvious question I have posed about commentator joecoolfrog, the exalted Brigadier who claims my opposition to the scoring system now in place is based on "envy".

I want to know why is it that I should recognize the "achievements" of someone who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players here.

Someone answer that.

OK I will answer. Nobody has to recognize anything that anybody has done. To make to Brig is tough. Very tough in fact. That is the reason there are only 130+ people who have ever done it out of the thousands that played. Should tell you how hard it is. So on that note, people who only play so few amount of people and still make it, makes it that much better. Why? Because that means they are playing better people from the start usually. Points per player. Just because you beat 100 cooks, does not make you any better. I just shows you can beat the lowest rank possible. WOW! I would much rather beat 1 Brig than 100 cooks. Cooks generally offer me no challenge. Number of people you beat does not mean you are better than player X who plays fewer games with better people or lower ranked people. Quality any day over sheer numbers.

What a pantload. Better people from the start. LOL

[Bruceswar]

What a pantload. Better people from the start. LOL

Yes that means they are not playing cooks from the get go. They are playing better ranked, more skilled people. By beating those people they get more points and move up the board faster. Not everybody who joins CC is a total noob at this game when they start.

[poo-maker]

Ah, I see. So those ranked higher than Sergeant make fewer idiot moves?

Of course those ranked higher than Seargeant make fewer idiot moves! After playing over 4000 games, I find it hard to believe that you don't realise this yet. But, after 4000 games, you have only managed to win little under 800 points here at cc. That works out to roughly 0.1786 points per game... lol... No wonder you hate the scoring system. At the rate you're going, it would take you around 18000 more games to get to the top of the scoreboard!

[jpliberty]

It’s interesting to look at the ratings left by the highest scoring players.

They leave far fewer ratings than players scoring far below them.

The reason for the discrepancy may or may not be obvious.

The simple fact is they play far fewer unique players.

Have you even asked any high rankers why they don't leave many ratings? My bet is that you haven't. Quite simply, I only leave ratings for a) people that impress me with their game play b) players that are ridiculously bad a conquerclub c) people who happened to catch me on a rating sorta mood. The reason I rate like this is because once I have rated the good players and the terrible players, I am left with the average players. The average players probably did little in the way of powerful strategic moves and knew enough about the game to not run over the rest of us for a bonus. They probably hung around for a few rounds posing a minor threat, but were easily taken out due to them not knowing enough about what was going on. I don't bother rating these players. The reason for that is because these players deserve 3's. When they get those well-deserved 3's, they whine and moan and ask what the hell did they do wrong to deserve a 3!

I usually refrain from posting in these kinds of threads. This is because they are always started by whining mid-rankers who are looking for any reason to show how the high rankers are abusing the system, somehow cheating and un-deserving of their ranks.

And you would know, right? Currently, you are the highest ranking Conquer Clubian.

And you've got unique defeats of about 1.5% of the Conquer Club player universe. Be very proud you pompous pantload.

[FabledIntegral]

No one who here has defended the current rank/scoring system has yet answered the very simple, direct and obvious question I have posed about commentator joecoolfrog, the exalted Brigadier who claims my opposition to the scoring system now in place is based on "envy".

I want to know why is it that I should recognize the "achievements" of someone who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players here.

Someone answer that.

OK I will answer. Nobody has to recognize anything that anybody has done. To make to Brig is tough. Very tough in fact. That is the reason there are only 130+ people who have ever done it out of the thousands that played. Should tell you how hard it is. So on that note, people who only play so few amount of people and still make it, makes it that much better. Why? Because that means they are playing better people from the start usually. Points per player. Just because you beat 100 cooks, does not make you any better. I just shows you can beat the lowest rank possible. WOW! I would much rather beat 1 Brig than 100 cooks. Cooks generally offer me no challenge. Number of people you beat does not mean you are better than player X who plays fewer games with better people or lower ranked people. Quality any day over sheer numbers.

What a pantload. Better people from the start. LOL

Look at my game history - I have a decent amount of games with low ranks. I have stopped joining casual games. i have been suicided on more times you can possibly fathom. As stated by a wise cook that won 100 points from me in a most recent game "It's only natural everyone here would target you, you have the highest score by far," or as another wise private has said "yeah everyone else on the board may have bonuses but your rank probably cancels that advantage out so it's even." Ugh.... I refuse to join any more games with these trash low rankers... I get suicided left and right... and I make quite the spectacle whenever it happens.

[Bruceswar]

It’s interesting to look at the ratings left by the highest scoring players.

They leave far fewer ratings than players scoring far below them.

The reason for the discrepancy may or may not be obvious.

The simple fact is they play far fewer unique players.

Have you even asked any high rankers why they don't leave many ratings? My bet is that you haven't. Quite simply, I only leave ratings for a) people that impress me with their game play b) players that are ridiculously bad a conquerclub c) people who happened to catch me on a rating sorta mood. The reason I rate like this is because once I have rated the good players and the terrible players, I am left with the average players. The average players probably did little in the way of powerful strategic moves and knew enough about the game to not run over the rest of us for a bonus. They probably hung around for a few rounds posing a minor threat, but were easily taken out due to them not knowing enough about what was going on. I don't bother rating these players. The reason for that is because these players deserve 3's. When they get those well-deserved 3's, they whine and moan and ask what the hell did they do wrong to deserve a 3!

I usually refrain from posting in these kinds of threads. This is because they are always started by whining mid-rankers who are looking for any reason to show how the high rankers are abusing the system, somehow cheating and un-deserving of their ranks.

And you would know, right? Currently, you are the highest ranking Conquer Clubian.

And you've got unique defeats of about 1.5% of the Conquer Club player universe. Be very proud you pompous pantload.

Have you ever played poo? If so you would not say these things. Poo is the best overall player in my opinion. He can play any style and win at a high rate. He deserves his rank. Now lets stop being jealous and keep on topic.

[jpliberty]

...Look at my game history - I have a decent amount of games with low ranks. I have stopped joining casual games. i have been suicided on more times you can possibly fathom.

I can understand. Happens to me all the time. Today in fact, and yesterday.

I create almost all the games I play. I am open to all...cooks are anathema to my score, as are cadets, privates, just about EVERYONE I play.

That's my point.

Thank you for agreeing with me, although I know you didn't mean it that way.

[jpliberty]

Have you ever played poo? If so you would not say these things. Poo is the best overall player in my opinion. He can play any style and win at a high rate. He deserves his rank. Now lets stop being jealous and keep on topic.

Whenever poo might grow a set poo can join any game I am in.

Poo wont' do that. Why. Poo like rank.

[FabledIntegral]

...Look at my game history - I have a decent amount of games with low ranks. I have stopped joining casual games. i have been suicided on more times you can possibly fathom.

I can understand. Happens to me all the time. Today in fact, and yesterday.

I create almost all the games I play. I am open to all...cooks are anathema to my score, as are cadets, privates, just about EVERYONE I play.

That's my point.

Thank you for agreeing with me, although I know you didn't mean it that way.

And the question is - why does that make a better player? If you think it happens to you regularly... imagine how often it happens as you get higher up.

[jpliberty]

...Look at my game history - I have a decent amount of games with low ranks. I have stopped joining casual games. i have been suicided on more times you can possibly fathom.

I can understand. Happens to me all the time. Today in fact, and yesterday.

I create almost all the games I play. I am open to all...cooks are anathema to my score, as are cadets, privates, just about EVERYONE I play.

That's my point.

Thank you for agreeing with me, although I know you didn't mean it that way.

And the question is - why does that make a better player? If you think it happens to you regularly... imagine how often it happens as you get higher up.

No. You get higher up by NOT playing many players.
Do a Map Rank search of the higher ranked players. The facts are plain, obvious to any who are not delusional. Higher rank MEANS you don't risk anything cause you play so few.
That is the fact. Your claims to the contrary object to common sense and to the simple, obvious truth.
It might be painful to hear, but I will say it again...Conquer Club's scoring system is rigged.

[Bruceswar]

Have you ever played poo? If so you would not say these things. Poo is the best overall player in my opinion. He can play any style and win at a high rate. He deserves his rank. Now lets stop being jealous and keep on topic.

Whenever poo might grow a set poo can join any game I am in.

Poo wont' do that. Why. Poo like rank.

Poo does not need to prove himself to anybody who calls him out. That sounds like such a play ground fight if I have ever seen one. Think you are so great and could beat poo? Try an 8 man Speed Freestyle game he is in. Many of the higher ranks frequent these games, because they love the challenge they present. The board is changing quickly and you have to be on your feet or else you will be dead quick. Anybody can look at a board all day and make their decisions, but doing so when 7 other players are moving at the same time becomes a real task. And no it is not all about Speed. From those games that I play, I generally rate everybody, and some who make dumb plays do not get good ratings from me. Just the way it is.

[jpliberty]

Have you ever played poo? If so you would not say these things. Poo is the best overall player in my opinion. He can play any style and win at a high rate. He deserves his rank. Now lets stop being jealous and keep on topic.

Whenever poo might grow a set poo can join any game I am in.

Poo wont' do that. Why. Poo like rank.

Poo does not need to prove himself to anybody who calls him out. That sounds like such a play ground fight if I have ever seen one. Think you are so great and could beat poo? Try an 8 man Speed Freestyle game he is in. Many of the higher ranks frequent these games, because they love the challenge they present. The board is changing quickly and you have to be on your feet or else you will be dead quick. Anybody can look at a board all day and make their decisions, but doing so when 7 other players are moving at the same time becomes a real task. And no it is not all about Speed. From those games that I play, I generally rate everybody, and some who make dumb plays do not get good ratings from me. Just the way it is.

Golly. Just reading about it makes me shiver. Now I see why the esteemed poo can't be bothered with defeating the other 98.5% of Conquer Clubians...poo obviously has poo hands full, dealing with delusional tools among the exalted...tools like you?

[lancehoch]

I do enjoy these threads. The top ranks get ragged on for only playing other top players. Then in another thread the top ranked people will get more abuse for only preying on new recruits. I am confused, which is it?

[jpliberty]

I do enjoy these threads. The top ranks get ragged on for only playing other top players. Then in another thread the top ranked people will get more abuse for only preying on new recruits. I am confused, which is it?

Actually, I have not suggested either anywhere in this thread. Both are avenues for exploitation.

Explain to me why someone who avoids playing ALMOST ALL the active players here should be ranked high.

Explain that.

[whitestazn88]

i think this thread has more to do with the fact that since top ranked players don't leave many ratings, the scoring system is rigged

its like me saying, i want to eat an apple because i am going to class tomorrow afternoon

[Timminz]

I do enjoy these threads. The top ranks get ragged on for only playing other top players. Then in another thread the top ranked people will get more abuse for only preying on new recruits. I am confused, which is it?

It's both, and nothing in between. Anyone with a rank over 2500 doesn't deserve it.

[Bruceswar]

No. You get higher up by NOT playing many players.
Do a Map Rank search of the higher ranked players. The facts are plain, obvious to any who are not delusional. Higher rank MEANS you don't risk anything cause you play so few.
That is the fact. Your claims to the contrary object to common sense and to the simple, obvious truth.
It might be painful to hear, but I will say it again...Conquer Club's scoring system is rigged.

Here is how it plays out....

A player joins CC and plays a few games and gets his butt kicked, he then sits down and tries again. 2nd time around he tries to remember what happened in the first batch of games, and tries to replicate it, or continue on his old path and loses more. When I first joined CC I would join many games(After I got my premium) and play with MikeZoo. I used to look at what he did and think it was very odd, but he seemingly won many games. I now find myself making many of these same type of moves. It is all a game of skill, the more you get the better you will be at it. These top tier players just decided they wanted to conquer the world more than others. They put more thought into the games than most. Moved up the scoreboard and are where they are now. Just because they choose not to play every cook in the game does not make them less of a player. They like games which require more skill and not games that depend on luck. This whole premise that the scoring system relates to the ratings givin is total BS. Want to play in one of these 2500+ games with these so called "whimps" work your way up there and see how much of a crap player these guys are. You might be shocked to see most all of these guys are pretty sound players.

[jpliberty]

From those games that I play, I generally rate everybody, and some who make dumb plays do not get good ratings from me. Just the way it is.

I always thought anyone leaving a negative under the old ratings system was being a tool. I believe anyone leaving less than a 5 on the current system is a tool just as I recognize that some understand the ratings system for the farce that it is and refuse to participate at all.

You, well, you have your standards.

[jpliberty]

I do enjoy these threads. The top ranks get ragged on for only playing other top players. Then in another thread the top ranked people will get more abuse for only preying on new recruits. I am confused, which is it?

It's both, and nothing in between. Anyone with a rank over 2500 doesn't deserve it.

Ah, quite the intelligent comment this one. I've tangled with Timminz. A good player, I will get the Timminz next time, I am sure of it

And Timminz is exactly correct.

[FabledIntegral]

...Look at my game history - I have a decent amount of games with low ranks. I have stopped joining casual games. i have been suicided on more times you can possibly fathom.

I can understand. Happens to me all the time. Today in fact, and yesterday.

I create almost all the games I play. I am open to all...cooks are anathema to my score, as are cadets, privates, just about EVERYONE I play.

That's my point.

Thank you for agreeing with me, although I know you didn't mean it that way.

And the question is - why does that make a better player? If you think it happens to you regularly... imagine how often it happens as you get higher up.

No. You get higher up by NOT playing many players.
Do a Map Rank search of the higher ranked players. The facts are plain, obvious to any who are not delusional. Higher rank MEANS you don't risk anything cause you play so few.
That is the fact. Your claims to the contrary object to common sense and to the simple, obvious truth.
It might be painful to hear, but I will say it again...Conquer Club's scoring system is rigged.

Your logic is terrible and irrelevant. Look at how your post sounds. No evidence, just "the evidence is clear! The answer is obvious! Anyone with a brain can see I'm right! You have to be crazy to not see it!"

Hardly - most high ranks I associate with play the general public, NOT private games. The private games you refer to, although your point is insanely dumb, make up a minority of the high ranks.

You're suggesting players such as KLOBBER and JR24 style of winning is better? You have more respect for certain players that will bash on cooks consistently to maintain a high score? Or is that not valid as well? It sounds to me like you fail to notice how those players got to those high ranks in the first place. You're suggesting that little risk is involved because the points stay pooled in a group of regulars and don't exit. Then how did they get there in the first place? They must have had to beat some players in teh first place in order to get there, and if they couldn't play other high ranks because of this said barrier you refer to, then they had to do it vs the lower ranks. I don't understand the difference between obtaining a high rank and becoming stagnant, or obtaining a high rank and have it fluctuate...

If the players as you mention in this pool also have little risk, they should all still be winning 1/8 games, lest they fall behind in points. So they MUST at least be at the skill level to compete in those games, or statistically they'd fall behind, NO DIFFERENT than any other type of game. No "point risk" whatsoever can be associated with this if you look at the long run picture.

[Bruceswar]

I do enjoy these threads. The top ranks get ragged on for only playing other top players. Then in another thread the top ranked people will get more abuse for only preying on new recruits. I am confused, which is it?

Could it be a bit of jealously? Perhaps? This coming from a person who says they do not care about score, is debating the scoring system. Hmm...

Sure there are players who abuse the system. AKA Klobber, but many of these top players just wish to play the best of the best. Simple as that.

[poo-maker]

Have you ever played poo? If so you would not say these things. Poo is the best overall player in my opinion. He can play any style and win at a high rate. He deserves his rank. Now lets stop being jealous and keep on topic.

Whenever poo might grow a set poo can join any game I am in.

Poo wont' do that. Why. Poo like rank.

As a player who joins games because i enjoy them rather than trying to prove my abilities, i know for sure that I won't be joining one of your games.

A quick search of your recent games shows that you like to play 2 player, sequential, Flate Rate, Unlim forts. I think I may have stumbled across the reason for all your hatred towards the scoring system. 2 player, sequential, flate rate with unlim forts is the most luck-based setting you can play at cc(obviously excluding the ridiculous, doodle assassins).
I'll break down your gamestyle's factors for you.
a) 2 player- 2 player games are heads up games, 1v1's. There is absolutely no diplomacy involved in 2 player games.
b)Sequential- It is not a secret that playing first in sequential is a big advantage. You get to play first roughly 50% of the time. This is a bad thing, you have absolutely no impact on whether or not you are playing first or second. Therefore, it is all luck whether or not you start the game going first against a cook or second against a colonel.
c)Flat Rate- there is a chance to get a set worth 10 after only 3 cards and a set worth 4 after 5 cards. This is far more luck based than esc and no cards. At least in esc, you know what your cards will be worth.
d) Unlim forts- Whoever goes first has a huge advantage, forting up and being able to attack with v.large stacks first in round 2.
In my opinion, it would be nearly impossible to get anywhere near the top of the scoreboard playing those settings. Hence, the 0.1786 points you get per game. It isn't the scoring systems fault that you chose to play settings where the biggest factor is luck.

[jpliberty]

I do enjoy these threads. The top ranks get ragged on for only playing other top players. Then in another thread the top ranked people will get more abuse for only preying on new recruits. I am confused, which is it?

Could it be a bit of jealously? Perhaps? This coming from a person who says they do not care about score, is debating the scoring system. Hmm...

Sure there are players who abuse the system. AKA Klobber, but many of these top players just wish to play the best of the best. Simple as that.

How are they the best if they NEVER are tested?

[FabledIntegral]

From those games that I play, I generally rate everybody, and some who make dumb plays do not get good ratings from me. Just the way it is.

I always thought anyone leaving a negative under the old ratings system was being a tool. I believe anyone leaving less than a 5 on the current system is a tool just as I recognize that some understand the ratings system for the farce that it is and refuse to participate at all.

You, well, you have your standards.

Then why have a feedback system in teh first place - utter retardation. I view people who merely leave all 5's as tools... to each his own.

[jpliberty]

Have you ever played poo? If so you would not say these things. Poo is the best overall player in my opinion. He can play any style and win at a high rate. He deserves his rank. Now lets stop being jealous and keep on topic.

Whenever poo might grow a set poo can join any game I am in.

Poo wont' do that. Why. Poo like rank.

As a player who joins games because i enjoy them rather than trying to prove my abilities, i know for sure that I won't be joining one of your games.

A quick search of your recent games shows that you like to play 2 player, sequential, Flate Rate, Unlim forts. I think I may have stumbled across the reason for all your hatred towards the scoring system. 2 player, sequential, flate rate with unlim forts is the most luck-based setting you can play at cc(obviously excluding the ridiculous, doodle assassins).
I'll break down your gamestyle's factors for you.
a) 2 player- 2 player games are heads up games, 1v1's. There is absolutely no diplomacy involved in 2 player games.
b)Sequential- It is not a secret that playing first in sequential is a big advantage. You get to play first roughly 50% of the time. This is a bad thing, you have absolutely no impact on whether or not you are playing first or second. Therefore, it is all luck whether or not you start the game going first against a cook or second against a colonel.
c)Flat Rate- there is a chance to get a set worth 10 after only 3 cards and a set worth 4 after 5 cards. This is far more luck based than esc and no cards. At least in esc, you know what your cards will be worth.
d) Unlim forts- Whoever goes first has a huge advantage, forting up and being able to attack with v.large stacks first in round 2.
In my opinion, it would be nearly impossible to get anywhere near the top of the scoreboard playing those settings. Hence, the 0.1786 points you get per game. It isn't the scoring systems fault that you chose to play settings where the biggest factor is luck.

"diplomacy" as you mean it actually means lets screw one or all of the others in the game.
There is NO room for "diplomacy" in these games.

Any FOOL can see that a game based on dice, random assignment of territories, etc. is almost ENTIRELY luck based. Only a FOOL believes skill is a major factor.

That said, I'd kick your ass at least 51% of the time in 2 player games. Maybe even 52%, unless, of course, you are like some of the top scorers, real soft in the underbelly, in which case I'd kick your ass up where your tongue hangs out.