at what rank would you consider someone an excellent player

[KoE_Sirius]

I dont consider rank to be a measure of Ability.SOme specialize in certain fields and gain high ranks ,but suck at different settings and some are Multis.

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is well documented that some on page one are there in large part because they only play a certain style of game that they've taken more time than anyone else to specialize in (I find it funny when they advertise their prowess at this very highly specific set of formats) or even worse, that they cheat.

However, this doesn't mean the entire system is bad. Rather that it is not above human flaws.

Ultimately, I would like to think that most people here are here to engage in spirited games and enjoy testing themselves on different maps, against different numbers of people, alone and on teams and with different card rules. Thus, I would imagine that a number of those on page one are simply there because they're better at thinking about the game than most.

You know, here's something that might work. As it stands, there are two color codes for one's rank (gold and silver). What if there was a 3rd? That is, half pink/half either gold or silver (for wimp) if you play more than a certain percentage of your games on one map or format. You would not be required to play every map or format but at least maintain some ratio of singles/team, cards/no cards, fog/no fog, and not have more than 1/3 of your games on a single map. Something like that. I don't know, fog, freestyle, and assassin are a bit out there, so perhaps the required ratio could either be very low if at all (at least for freestyle or assassin).

I dont agree with the first 2 paragraphs..So I'll agree to disagree.As for the last paragraph.This method has a fatal floor...I have played a lot games on different maps and yet I specialize in one.The games I have played preivously will counter any maps I want to play over and over for months.Plus a lot of maps have the same objective,so it would be pointless to say someone is a whimp for sticking to classic.When Canada or Middle Earth etc are so much alike.

[Pedronicus]

Win percentage has a lot to do with the number of people you play in your games. If you only play 8 player games, a win percentage of 25% would be awesome. If you only play 2 or 3 player games, a 25% win rate would suck.

I agree with austex regarding the percentage of games won depending on how many players you play against.

I don't tend to play with less than 3 opponents in a game - and when i say three, I mean a six player game of doubles. Otherwise I'll generally be in a 5-6 singles player game. I do tend to stick to Classic, because I came here after playing RISK for ages and that's the map I know.
I look at other maps, but need to know instinctively who made what moves previously, just by the territories conquered.
I can understand the territories on Europe (which is a map I absolutely detest because of the shit layout of European countries not working in a game of risk)
I've seen my team mate make a slight balls up in going through Asia recently, and this is because he plays all the maps out there. There is a saying of 'Jack of all trades, master of none' which rings true in a lot of people playing this game.
Mastering one map is the key to success if you are going to play in 5-6 player games.

There is also the other part of a game that a lot of people like - and that's a decent amount of in game chat. The chat in a game can make a game much more fun to play. If someone is genuinely funny, or bleats and cries about the game... That make a game more fun.

I'm not particularly bothered by points this time around. I'm just here to play my game & have some fun. Too many people playing triples with people they know have made making number 1 spot impossible unless you go down the same route or get real lucky in a couple of of those Battle Royale games.

[Plutoman]

Just wanna throw in my opinion.

I consider myself a good player. Not an excellent one. A decent/good player.

I rarely play the same map several times in a row, with the exception of feudal. My 1v1 percentage on feudal is around 70%. My doubles in fedual the same. However, what I find most fun is to sit down with friends and play a freestyle RT game, with 3 others or so. So competitive, it's a hell of a lot of fun.

But... I suck at those. I lose them frequently. I don't have time to consider my moves, and other problems that arise. They ARE the most fun for me though

Playing games in sequential, when I actually care so much about winning a game, and I'll plan for quite a while. I'll check up on all my opponents possible moves, what I can do to counter them, what I can do to get around the possible chance of losing on the dice rolls. I've only done this for a few games, however, as I don't feel like it's worth it. I'd rather play it for the fun factor than worry about points.

Which is conveniently why I'm hovering around a cadet/private.

If I cared about points, I'd be playing classic/sequential/adjacent/nocards/foggy and be winning 70-75% of the time. Then I'd be playing feudal 1v1's and doubles with sequential/chained/nocards/foggy and have the same percentage. But playing the same map repeatedly isn't fun.

This is why I tend to discount rank so much in games. I think a MUCH excellent measure is the amount of games they have played. If they've played over a thousand games, I would tend to assume they are a bit less likely to pay less attention. I'd also assume they know their way around maps a bit more.

Needless to say, I'm a free player, and I don't have many games under my belt atm, either. Just around the 100 mark or so. So it's not really good either.

I do agree that players holding a rank above 2k, are going to be good players. Whether or not they specialize, they can still play the game. However, people with ranks down to around 900-1k aren't always bad players.

Once you get below THAT, however, then you start looking at bad players >.>

[Plutoman]

a player can't be skilled at sequential/freestyle escalating? you have to excel at all game types to be an excellent player.... you're grabbing at straws. i remember why i chose not to respond to most of your posts. my mistake for responding to this one.

Just had to comment on this... When all I see is freestyle/classic/escalating games from you. All 8 players, too.

[oVo]

Scott-Land did not make the claim that he is an excellent player and simply pointed out a criteria that he believes is significant in acheiving such status. Maybe one day he will aspire to excellence by extending his own gameplay to match those personal standards.

[Snorri1234]

over 3,000

Well JR, you've set about every record imaginable so I am sure you would consider yourself good, however, you have been under 3000 a number of times also. With this said, does reaching 3000 or maintaining 3000 make you a better player? There are players who have reached 3000 due to a BR and now are under. Reaching a certain score means nothing to me, maintaining it however does. Would you agree?

its easy to maintain as well. just dont play low ranks. if you play players only over 3,000, you only lose 15 points or so per game. since most players at this level only play each other, their wins and losses against each other wash out. the only example against this is SkyT. he plays only low ranks in triples but has access to all 3 accounts. than when he losses a game, he sets up 1 vs 1's against each account to get the points back. thats how he maintains it.

Holy crap!

Did JR just say he never plays low ranks?

[soka]

your a good player if you only play people with lower ranks then you