[CC 2010 Semis] TOFU vs KoRT [20-40 of 60]

[josko.ri]

btw, what was with side bet about wearing opponent sigs to the clan who loose? like we had vs Empire

I read something discussion about that at the beginning, but didnt find final agreement about that.

[Bruceswar]

btw, what was with side bet about wearing opponent sigs to the clan who loose? like we had vs Empire

I read something discussion about that at the beginning, but didnt find final agreement about that.

Basically whoever wins will get to make the other clan a sig(S). The other clan can choose to wear them or not. It is a 2 week period and is all in fun.

[josko.ri]

btw, what was with side bet about wearing opponent sigs to the clan who loose? like we had vs Empire

I read something discussion about that at the beginning, but didnt find final agreement about that.

Basically whoever wins will get to make the other clan a sig(S). The other clan can choose to wear them or not. It is a 2 week period and is all in fun.

Empire is great clan and was great opponents with a lot of tough games. they also showed their honor with no whining and with wearing those sigs very proudly

[Knight2254]

There's a difference between whining and stating the facts. I was merely stating that I'm not sure we can come back due to these games being played at such a high level of skill. In fact, I would argue,and I have before, that there is little difference between the top few clans and a high percentage of these battles will be decided by luck. Once you have two top clans playing each other there is little you can do in terms of strategy that will outwit or outplay the other team. A lot of it comes down to drop and the dice you are given. My personal opinion anyways.

[josko.ri]

There's a difference between whining and stating the facts. I was merely stating that I'm not sure we can come back due to these games being played at such a high level of skill. In fact, I would argue,and I have before, that there is little difference between the top few clans and a high percentage of these battles will be decided by luck. Once you have two top clans playing each other there is little you can do in terms of strategy that will outwit or outplay the other team. A lot of it comes down to drop and the dice you are given. My personal opinion anyways.

when Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal play on Wimbledon, Roger will probably win, while on Roland Garros Rafa will probably win.
just wanted to say, 2 top players, but they can not say that other one won by lot of luck. someone won because he is much better than other on that type of ground.
so, even if 2 the best of the best plays, there is difference in their skills (somebody is better, the other is worse). Roger can do miracles and have never seen luck, but I think Rafa will win anyway in Roland Garros.
so, I dont agree with you:

Once you have two top clans playing each other there is little you can do in terms of strategy that will outwit or outplay the other team.

I think when 2 top clans is playing, it is the greatest chance to show all the best skills from both clans. the one clan who shows more, in 60 games will probably prevail. it is not 10 games war that luck in some of them can decide. luck can decide a few games, but also few other games will give your back that luck, so luck decided games will be more or less equal, and finally I think better skills will decide the winner.
it is my personal opinion (proved by tennis example), probably the others have different one.

[ljex]

There's a difference between whining and stating the facts. I was merely stating that I'm not sure we can come back due to these games being played at such a high level of skill. In fact, I would argue,and I have before, that there is little difference between the top few clans and a high percentage of these battles will be decided by luck. Once you have two top clans playing each other there is little you can do in terms of strategy that will outwit or outplay the other team. A lot of it comes down to drop and the dice you are given. My personal opinion anyways.

when Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal play on Wimbledon, Roger will probably win, while on Roland Garros Rafa will probably win.
just wanted to say, 2 top players, but they can not say that other one won by lot of luck. someone won because he is much better than other on that type of ground.
so, even if 2 the best of the best plays, there is difference in their skills (somebody is better, the other is worse). Roger can do miracles and have never seen luck, but I think Rafa will win anyway in Roland Garros.
so, I dont agree with you:

Once you have two top clans playing each other there is little you can do in terms of strategy that will outwit or outplay the other team.

I think when 2 top clans is playing, it is the greatest chance to show all the best skills from both clans. the one clan who shows more, in 60 games will probably prevail. it is not 10 games war that luck in some of them can decide. luck can decide a few games, but also few other games will give your back that luck, so luck decided games will be more or less equal, and finally I think better skills will decide the winner.
it is my personal opinion (proved by tennis example), probably the others have different one.

Ah yes because there are dice rolls that determine the winner in a tennis match...

I really hope you don't actually believe what you just said because it is so far from the truth its laughable...almost like the time you tried to say me and commander62890 were conducting secret diplomacy and that we somehow achieved a higher winning percentage doing so when we both won >50% when the other person was not playing in the game...thus making a higher winning percentage impossible. Anyway lets give a relevant example next time as there is no luck in tennis and there is a great degree of luck in the game of risk. Yeah it should balance out over time but that doesn't mean that there will be even luck over the course of 60 games.

[Bruceswar]

Ah yes because there are dice rolls that determine the winner in a tennis match...

I really hope you don't actually believe what you just said because it is so far from the truth its laughable...almost like the time you tried to say me and commander62890 were conducting secret diplomacy and that we somehow achieved a higher winning percentage doing so when we both won >50% when the other person was not playing in the game...thus making a higher winning percentage impossible. Anyway lets give a relevant example next time as there is no luck in tennis and there is a great degree of luck in the game of risk. Yeah it should balance out over time but that doesn't mean that there will be even luck over the course of 60 games.

Actually there is a lot of truth to what Josko.ri said. Basically he is saying some players are better at different settings than others. Maps, Settings, etc can decide a match.

[ljex]

Ah yes because there are dice rolls that determine the winner in a tennis match...

I really hope you don't actually believe what you just said because it is so far from the truth its laughable...almost like the time you tried to say me and commander62890 were conducting secret diplomacy and that we somehow achieved a higher winning percentage doing so when we both won >50% when the other person was not playing in the game...thus making a higher winning percentage impossible. Anyway lets give a relevant example next time as there is no luck in tennis and there is a great degree of luck in the game of risk. Yeah it should balance out over time but that doesn't mean that there will be even luck over the course of 60 games.

Actually there is a lot of truth to what Josko.ri said. Basically he is saying some players are better at different settings than others. Maps, Settings, etc can decide a match.

Yeah skill can determine who wins the game...but what knight is saying is that in games between two top clans more often than not dice and drops will determine who wins the game which i think most people can agree is true. We would like to believe that over the course of a challenge luck will be equal and the better clan will win but that will not always be the case. Also if you think that luck cant be a factor i would like to refer you to http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 42&t=83389 where if i recall you once told me that that was completely based on luck...i don't have time to find a game# but i know its out there. Yeah its statistically less likely that it luck will decide the winner of the challenge over 60 games but there is still a chance.

Also i am not saying that KORT isn't winning on skill as i haven't seen the games, i am just saying that luck can, has and will continue to decide who wins games when you are playing risk.

[niMic]

Ah yes because there are dice rolls that determine the winner in a tennis match...

I really hope you don't actually believe what you just said because it is so far from the truth its laughable...almost like the time you tried to say me and commander62890 were conducting secret diplomacy and that we somehow achieved a higher winning percentage doing so when we both won >50% when the other person was not playing in the game...thus making a higher winning percentage impossible. Anyway lets give a relevant example next time as there is no luck in tennis and there is a great degree of luck in the game of risk. Yeah it should balance out over time but that doesn't mean that there will be even luck over the course of 60 games.

Actually there is a lot of truth to what Josko.ri said. Basically he is saying some players are better at different settings than others. Maps, Settings, etc can decide a match.

Yeah skill can determine who wins the game...but what knight is saying is that in games between two top clans more often than not dice and drops will determine who wins the game which i think most people can agree is true. We would like to believe that over the course of a challenge luck will be equal and the better clan will win but that will not always be the case. Also if you think that luck cant be a factor i would like to refer you to http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 42&t=83389 where if i recall you once told me that that was completely based on luck...i don't have time to find a game# but i know its out there. Yeah its statistically less likely that it luck will decide the winner of the challenge over 60 games but there is still a chance.

Also i am not saying that KORT isn't winning on skill as i haven't seen the games, i am just saying that luck can, has and will continue to decide who wins games when you are playing risk.

More often than not? Can't really agree with that. I don't think the luck factor plays any bigger part in top level games than in lower level games. There are more outright mistakes in lower level games, but there are mistakes and poor play in top level games too - it's just a lot more subtle.

I don't have anything against TOFU at all, but there does seem to be quite a few cases of "We're not saying it's luck, but" going around.

[Chariot of Fire]

Ah yes because there are dice rolls that determine the winner in a tennis match...

I really hope you don't actually believe what you just said because it is so far from the truth its laughable...almost like the time you tried to say me and commander62890 were conducting secret diplomacy and that we somehow achieved a higher winning percentage doing so when we both won >50% when the other person was not playing in the game...thus making a higher winning percentage impossible. Anyway lets give a relevant example next time as there is no luck in tennis and there is a great degree of luck in the game of risk. Yeah it should balance out over time but that doesn't mean that there will be even luck over the course of 60 games.

Actually there is a lot of truth to what Josko.ri said. Basically he is saying some players are better at different settings than others. Maps, Settings, etc can decide a match.

Yeah skill can determine who wins the game...but what knight is saying is that in games between two top clans more often than not dice and drops will determine who wins the game which i think most people can agree is true. We would like to believe that over the course of a challenge luck will be equal and the better clan will win but that will not always be the case. Also if you think that luck cant be a factor i would like to refer you to http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 42&t=83389 where if i recall you once told me that that was completely based on luck...i don't have time to find a game# but i know its out there. Yeah its statistically less likely that it luck will decide the winner of the challenge over 60 games but there is still a chance.

Also i am not saying that KORT isn't winning on skill as i haven't seen the games, i am just saying that luck can, has and will continue to decide who wins games when you are playing risk.

More often than not? Can't really agree with that. I don't think the luck factor plays any bigger part in top level games than in lower level games. There are more outright mistakes in lower level games, but there are mistakes and poor play in top level games too - it's just a lot more subtle.

I don't have anything against TOFU at all, but there does seem to be quite a few cases of "We're not saying it's luck, but" going around.

I think you're missing ljex's point. He's not inferring that it's solely the reserve of top flight clans but rather that adversaries of equal skill will play games that more often than not come down to drop & dice.

As for the luck statement. It's a reflex born of being on the receiving end of a lot of crap. ODW, FC, AoM & East Hemi are just four that spring to mind - games that should have been TOFU victories had it not been for some laughable misfortune. "Yeah we got lucky" is a lot easier to read than "Woohoo, great turnaround", "Another win for KoRT" etc. I'm waiting for a game to come along where you guys are so far ahead you think it's in the bag, just to see the rug pulled from under your feet. It's pretty frustrating, so making the statements we do is simply our way of venting some anger, that's all.

[josko.ri]

ODW, FC, AoM & East Hemi are just four that spring to mind - games that should have been TOFU victories had it not been for some laughable misfortune.

you only consider last 2-3 turns in that games and make conclusions that we were luckier (it is true, in last turns of these games we were).
but, the games was not played in only last 2 turns. how it should be tofu victories? maybe you had great luck in 1st turns of these games and didnt use that to win? in AoM you were ahead because Moose had 1-7 dices in 1st turn, connected with 70% of ports you owned on beginning. in ODW you reduced steve on 1 region. what was that if not bad luck for us and good for you? a game is not only last 2 turns, if you judge about luck in these games then you may look whole game, not only last turn.

as you said:

I tell you what people don't like to speak about (at least people from TOFU).....and that is to speak of flaws in another's gameplay in a public thread.

then I will respect your opinion (even if I dont agree) and will not comment tactics part (mistakes) of most of these games, which was in my opinion more important than just luck.

[Chariot of Fire]

Don't talk out of your arse, you know perfectly well how those games went. ODW was an adjacent forts game and was played in such a way that I had 12 to beat 2,1,1. That's 4 armies Steve had - 1 more than my partner at the time - so don't talk to me about misfortune in the early stages of the game. As for AoM.....2 players holding 2 pairs whilst u guys weren't even playing for cards, then along comes a 3 card set. Same story in E.Hemi - twice teal survived attacks by armies outnumbering him (Trap rolling 5-18 or something just as crazy) then Steve holding 2 pairs when orange had been left to his fate and not protected. And then a 3 card set - enough to take out Steve. No flaws in the gameplay - there's simply nothing one can do when fate conspires to give you 3-10, 5-18, 2 x 2 pairs etc.

then I will respect your opinion (even if I dont agree) and will not comment tactics part (mistakes) of most of these games, which was in my opinion more important than just luck

Maybe your superior strategic commentary would be more convincing if you reached a higher rank without playing 14% of all your games on Feudal

[niMic]

Maybe your superior strategic commentary would be more convincing if you reached a higher rank without playing 14% of all your games on Feudal

You have 12% games on Classic and 7% on Waterloo. I have no idea what that means, if anything, but you seem to have a keen idea?

Besides, there are far worse one-trick poneys out there than josko. I have 30% on World 2.1!

[josko.ri]

Don't talk out of your arse, you know perfectly well how those games went. ODW was an adjacent forts game and was played in such a way that I had 12 to beat 2,1,1. That's 4 armies Steve had - 1 more than my partner at the time - so don't talk to me about misfortune in the early stages of the game. As for AoM.....2 players holding 2 pairs whilst u guys weren't even playing for cards, then along comes a 3 card set. Same story in E.Hemi - twice teal survived attacks by armies outnumbering him (Trap rolling 5-18 or something just as crazy) then Steve holding 2 pairs when orange had been left to his fate and not protected. And then a 3 card set - enough to take out Steve. No flaws in the gameplay - there's simply nothing one can do when fate conspires to give you 3-10, 5-18, 2 x 2 pairs etc.

you misunderstood my point. how could steve had 2,1,1,1? didnt he started with 6*3 = 18 stacks? I was talking about luck you had before that to put him down on 2,1,1,1. how could he be on only 4 stacks in round 5 if you didnt have great luck before that to put him down to 4 stacks in only 4 rounds? that s what I wanted to told, judging about luck must include all game, not only from round 5 to the end. btw in AoM I also had 2 pairs.

the same luck you had in other games, ie. feudal epic (1st start connected with 2 mixed, 2 blue, 3 green, 1 red sets for you(58 from 8 sets) while we had 1M2B1G5R until now (52 from 9 sets). is it bad luck? and we are still leading the game.
or NYC, where foxy got bad dices just before knight killed KP, and then knight got extraordinary dices
or poker where we had 0-9 in earlier stage of game
so somewhere luck turn it on our side somewhere on your side, it is normal part of the game. that s why I think in series of 60 games it can not be said that someone won or lost due to great or bad luck.

Maybe your superior strategic commentary would be more convincing if you reached a higher rank without playing 14% of all your games on Feudal

hehe it is very funny that you found that statistics. if you check my games, you will see that 73% of my ever played games are 1v1 sequential, 85% of them played vs players ranked from lieutenant to major, and no matter of that I am currently 800 consecutive games (of 1230 ever played) ranked colonel or better (was general also). also, my winning% on 1v1 seq games are 64%, the same like winning% on only 1v1 feudal maps, so I dont see which benefit I got from playing feudals the most.
also, try to find someone ranked colonel or above who have positive points gained from 1v1 sequential games. I have +676 now, while your best score ever on 1v1 sequential games is +4 . btw, you currently have -744
so, if you want to speak about someone's rank, first check which type of games he plays, and if you see that 73% of his ever played games are 1v1 sequential, then you may conclude he probably is not Field Marshal.

[Chariot of Fire]

Am I really 12% on Classic? I'd never have guessed. Must be all those games in the early days when it's the only map I knew, plus it's very popular for multiplayer singles esc. Hardly a 'farming for points' map is it. I certainly don't pick it through choice and you'd be hard-pressed to ever find me playing red on Classic unless it's a tourney.

I guess I can look forward to 2.1 in Round 3 then eh? It's a great map.

[Knight2254]

Your tennis example is ludicrous. This game comes down to three things: Drop, Dice, and Skill.

With two evenly matched teams, skill is less of a factor. I would say TOFU has a player with a skill set of maps and settings who is comparable to anybody KORT throw at us. All of the good top clans do. If you don't you're simply not a top clan as you can't compete.

Thus, all that is left is dice and drop. And maybe luck of the cards if you're playing with them (lucky 3 set, 2 pairs, ect).

All I'm saying is when playing evenly matched games it becomes very difficult to come back after down early in a challenge as there are very few mistakes made to capitalize on. Playing a lesser clan you would find more mistakes and could steal a victory here and there.

[josko.ri]

With two evenly matched teams, skill is less of a factor.

it is true but in CC never played 2 evenly teams. if somebody can multiply himself and play vs his multiplication then it would be 2 evenly teams.
in all other (real) cases teams are different, which means one team is better skilled than another. if a game play 2 the best teams on the site, there is also 1 team better and other team is worse skilled.

[ljex]

so somewhere luck turn it on our side somewhere on your side, it is normal part of the game. that s why I think in series of 60 games it can not be said that someone won or lost due to great or bad luck.

Yeah luck should ballance out over 60 games but that doesn't mean that it will...this is an important concept that you seem to not understand.

you misunderstood my point. how could steve had 2,1,1,1? didnt he started with 6*3 = 18 stacks? I was talking about luck you had before that to put him down on 2,1,1,1. how could he be on only 4 stacks in round 5 if you didnt have great luck before that to put him down to 4 stacks in only 4 rounds? that s what I wanted to told, judging about luck must include all game, not only from round 5 to the end. btw in AoM I also had 2 pairs.

the same luck you had in other games, ie. feudal epic (1st start connected with 2 mixed, 2 blue, 3 green, 1 red sets for you(58 from 8 sets) while we had 1M2B1G5R until now (52 from 9 sets). is it bad luck? and we are still leading the game.
or NYC, where foxy got bad dices just before knight killed KP, and then knight got extraordinary dices
or poker where we had 0-9 in earlier stage of game
so somewhere luck turn it on our side somewhere on your side, it is normal part of the game. that s why I think in series of 60 games it can not be said that someone won or lost due to great or bad luck.

Would you rather get luck at the beginning of a game to pull ahead and then lose when the other team gets lucky...or get unlucky at the beginning of the game only to pull out a lucky win at the end? Its simple luck that lets you pull ahead only to lose to getting unlucky is in the long run meaningless as you still lost the game. Also your sets example only proves that they had better luck with sets not dice...if they lost 20 troops more than you attacking the same number of neutrals they would still be down troops because of luck...can you please learn to post unbiased statistics...

[jj3044]

I think that perhaps KORT is proving itself to be a top contender... I'm impressed.

I thought we did that when we beat Empire? Just seems a bit backwards, unless you think TOFU is head of heels above you? Until now TOFU had not taken on anybody in the top 7? Lets see how this pans out.


P.S. Thanks for the praise.

lol, no, it wasn't that I think TOFU is head and shoulders above us (actually that would be a pretty awesome matchup)... I was just offering a compliment to you bovines at the way you are handling yourselves in these challenges. Indeed when you beat us we were all like "woah.".

Your welcome for the praise, you deserve it.

On another note, I can't believe that my praise indirectly helped create the last 2 pages of slagging... lol

[Commander62890]

I think that perhaps KORT is proving itself to be a top contender... I'm impressed.

I thought we did that when we beat Empire? Just seems a bit backwards, unless you think TOFU is head of heels above you? Until now TOFU had not taken on anybody in the top 7? Lets see how this pans out.


P.S. Thanks for the praise.

lol, no, it wasn't that I think TOFU is head and shoulders above us (actually that would be a pretty awesome matchup)... I was just offering a compliment to you bovines at the way you are handling yourselves in these challenges.

Just to clarify, I believe Bruce is saying that, going into this challenge, KoRT was more "proven" than TOFU.


Your comment seemed to imply that you had originally held TOFU in higher esteem than KoRT.


Since you were surprised that KoRT is doing this well against TOFU, and KoRT beat Empire, this means that you must hold TOFU in very high esteem indeed... in Bruce's words, "head of heels" above Empire.


This is not necessarily what I took from your post, but I think Bruce is just trying to say that he doesn't understand why you didn't think KoRT would play this well.
After all, KoRT beat Empire, and TOFU hasn't beaten anyone in the top 7. In Bruce's logic, this makes KoRT the favorites, at least in terms of past performance in challenges.


You're welcome.

[niMic]

Game 7512090 for KoRT.

I never get to say that .

[josko.ri]

Game 7512090 for KoRT.

I never get to say that .

congrats

[Foxglove]

I don't think there's a single game where we can say "Hey, we got a great drop!".

maybe Hive game, 1st drop gives you 24 stacks advantage (12 plus instead of 12 minus). so, 24 stacks advantage connected with unlimited forts I think is enough to say "Hey, we got a great drop!".

Nope. Hive is one of the maps where 1st start is really inconsiderable. You can't get anyone below 12 deploy anyway so it is not about high drop there.

Maybe by Round 2 you can.

[ManBungalow]

Everyone shut up and have fun.

[Eyestone]

Everyone shut up and have fun.