More "proof" that the scoring system is rigged

[mpjh]

nnnnuaaa slap kick pop

why'd yu do that

slap poke

Liberty, get a life, please.

[Dancing Mustard]

Name ONE of your "quite a few".

Just name one, give me specifics on that one.

Cause I don't for a second believe it is that simple, nor have I ever suggested same.

Remember, I come at this with the very direct and simple statement that NO scoring system exists which is adequate. I quite bluntly state that there should be no score, no rank, heaven forbid, no medals.

And, I rank far, far higher than most in all those "estimable" attainments

Long before I ever started this thread I was on it (this thing you and several others now have prompted me to do...like I am some idiot who spoke before he looked.

I looked. Even a cursory glance at the very basic stats of only the highest scoring players would show you there are problems, serious problems

Now what are those. That gets ALOT more complicated.

So, again, who is it you know about? Really, it's alot more complicated than you make it sound.

I repeatedly have criticized the management of this site and all of their idolators, but repeeatedly I have not directly nor personally confronted the score holders...except to very bluntly state that their ranks are BS...NOT that they are BS, that their scores are BS.

See? There is a huge difference.

If one for one nanosecond believes in CC's scoring system I ask that one to explain that system to me.

NO ONE CAN!

I know what it is "based" on. Do you?

It's pure BS, but do you know what it is based upon? Again, there is "science' here...hehe.

PURE BS, but that is what CC wants you to believe. Why? MONEY.

I've received pms urging me to do what anyone actually can do which is to analyze play history for each of the "top scorers".

For many, many reasons I believe that such data as can be gleamed from Map Rank, while very useful is not, cannot be the total story here.

Some TWITS continue to construe everything I have said and will say on this subject as somehow objecting to their idealized gods.

Well, that's true. ANYONE who believes the scoring system in place at CC has any validity whatsoever is a complete moron.

I've made that point very clear.

I'ver repeatedly stated that the scoring system exists precisely and SOLELY because the administration of CC KNOWS there are morons in their midst who will give them money if they service the morons.

Some people like to get medals. Who doesn't. Voila, we have a medal system. Guess what. So many people now cry out for new medals, so what does CC do, well, it promises the creation of new medals, it solicits, from the MORONs, more "ideas" for more medals.

It's all very funny on one hand.

So, I'll get back to your statement. Just name that "quite a few". Cause, frankly, I know alot about the playing history of alot of the top scorers, and although my opposition to the scoring system itself is quite clear, my reason and knowledge tells me that no single individual's play record yet is revealing of any one trend which should lead the whole CC community to some desired communion.
Remember, there are idiots here, among us, who believe the current system is not rigged. They fervently believe that those who adamantly refuse to play more than 1% of this community are gods...and why? Because they are part of the tiny, very small universe of TWITS who play only themselves, OVER and OVER and OVER.

They like having one or several huge scores, large scorers, because that validates their own presumption, that they somehow have attained something of value.

I am the one who has and will vanquish more than 50% of the time ANY idiot who says it is otherwise. I don't think I can do so much more than 50% of the time because I KNOW this game is based, almost ENTIRELY, on luck. But, I have a hunch that anyone so STUPID as to find value in the CC system is such an idiot that I probably can win the closer games I otherwise would have lost, so almost certainly I will win slightly MORE than 50% against anyone who really and truly believes the CC scoring system has merit. I've beaten idiots before, I can do so again.

Well, I'm not one of them, but there are more of them than there are of me.

Longpost is looooooooooooooong.


Oh no, hang on. wait a minute: I meant cat.

[owenshooter]

Name ONE of your "quite a few".

Just name one, give me specifics on that one.

Cause I don't for a second believe it is that simple, nor have I ever suggested same.

Remember, I come at this with the very direct and simple statement that NO scoring system exists which is adequate. I quite bluntly state that there should be no score, no rank, heaven forbid, no medals.

And, I rank far, far higher than most in all those "estimable" attainments

Long before I ever started this thread I was on it (this thing you and several others now have prompted me to do...like I am some idiot who spoke before he looked.

I looked. Even a cursory glance at the very basic stats of only the highest scoring players would show you there are problems, serious problems

Now what are those. That gets ALOT more complicated.

So, again, who is it you know about? Really, it's alot more complicated than you make it sound.

I repeatedly have criticized the management of this site and all of their idolators, but repeeatedly I have not directly nor personally confronted the score holders...except to very bluntly state that their ranks are BS...NOT that they are BS, that their scores are BS.

See? There is a huge difference.

If one for one nanosecond believes in CC's scoring system I ask that one to explain that system to me.

NO ONE CAN!

I know what it is "based" on. Do you?

It's pure BS, but do you know what it is based upon? Again, there is "science' here...hehe.

PURE BS, but that is what CC wants you to believe. Why? MONEY.

I've received pms urging me to do what anyone actually can do which is to analyze play history for each of the "top scorers".

For many, many reasons I believe that such data as can be gleamed from Map Rank, while very useful is not, cannot be the total story here.

Some TWITS continue to construe everything I have said and will say on this subject as somehow objecting to their idealized gods.

Well, that's true. ANYONE who believes the scoring system in place at CC has any validity whatsoever is a complete moron.

I've made that point very clear.

I'ver repeatedly stated that the scoring system exists precisely and SOLELY because the administration of CC KNOWS there are morons in their midst who will give them money if they service the morons.

Some people like to get medals. Who doesn't. Voila, we have a medal system. Guess what. So many people now cry out for new medals, so what does CC do, well, it promises the creation of new medals, it solicits, from the MORONs, more "ideas" for more medals.

It's all very funny on one hand.

So, I'll get back to your statement. Just name that "quite a few". Cause, frankly, I know alot about the playing history of alot of the top scorers, and although my opposition to the scoring system itself is quite clear, my reason and knowledge tells me that no single individual's play record yet is revealing of any one trend which should lead the whole CC community to some desired communion.
Remember, there are idiots here, among us, who believe the current system is not rigged. They fervently believe that those who adamantly refuse to play more than 1% of this community are gods...and why? Because they are part of the tiny, very small universe of TWITS who play only themselves, OVER and OVER and OVER.

They like having one or several huge scores, large scorers, because that validates their own presumption, that they somehow have attained something of value.

I am the one who has and will vanquish more than 50% of the time ANY idiot who says it is otherwise. I don't think I can do so much more than 50% of the time because I KNOW this game is based, almost ENTIRELY, on luck. But, I have a hunch that anyone so STUPID as to find value in the CC system is such an idiot that I probably can win the closer games I otherwise would have lost, so almost certainly I will win slightly MORE than 50% against anyone who really and truly believes the CC scoring system has merit. I've beaten idiots before, I can do so again.

Well, I'm not one of them, but there are more of them than there are of me.

Longpost is looooooooooooooong.


Oh no, hang on. wait a minute: I meant cat.

yeah... very long... and i'm still waiting for the "proof".-0

[joecoolfrog]

...To further assume that throwing baseless ( and unsupported ) insults at respected players is advantageous to ones argument argues a degree of senility that can only be pitied. The thing is that the likes of Scott,Poo and Joe will continue to play enjoyable ,hard fought games and other players will consider their level of expertise to be worth aiming for, this liberty oaf will however carry on doing little more than throwing dice all day and be of similar significance to the shit on the sole of ones shoe,

Respected? Perhaps respected by the 1% to 3% of the CC players any of them have ever defeated. Unknown and untested by the vast majority of CC players.

You are talking simple gibberish now, I for example have never played you but am pretty certain you are an embittered imbecile, others on this thread no doubt share my view. Comic boy may have only played a few thousand people but many others would know him because at various times he held certain records and was conqueror, yet others might know him from the forums or through his clan - really your arguments would shame a 5 year old.

[FabledIntegral]

So since 95% of my games are public... whether casual or speed... does that make me good? . God if I had known that avoided high ranked players and playing the "mainstream" players of which I have over twice their score would make me considered an exalted player, I would have announced my public games much sooner.

[dividedbyzero]

Credibility is not achieved through word count. I tried to not glaze over reading your post. Basically, what I gleaned from it is:

1) You don't like the scoring system.
2) You will never like the scoring system as it is.
3) Players that don't meet your personal criteria are not necessarily the top players.
4) I'm not sure what #4 is, but I'm sure it has merit.

I can't fix your problem. If you dislike the scoring system, you need to suggest a viable alternative to the management. If you think the management will not listen to you, then you need to either alter your methodology or leave. After all, it's a gaming site, not a determination of self-worth. I did notice that after I went back and found your words on unique defeats that you left that bit out of your reply. I'm not sure why. This bit still seems to indicate that it's the basis for your argument:

Remember, there are idiots here, among us, who believe the current system is not rigged. They fervently believe that those who adamantly refuse to play more than 1% of this community are gods...and why? Because they are part of the tiny, very small universe of TWITS who play only themselves, OVER and OVER and OVER.

As for my list of players I know are tough players, here's a few from the top 50 or so. I only am including players that I have played against or on a team with. Given the reputation of some, especially the freestyle guys like Fabled, I'm sure they are quite deadly to play against as well. But, again, I digress. Here is that list:

Poo-maker
Scott-Land
Warsteiner
Mike Doherty
Big Whiskey
BENJIKAT IS DEAD (Also Benjikat in his previous life)
Blitzaholic
MOBAJOBG
Teylen

There are probably others, but that's off the top of my head. If you acknowledge that the top scoreholders are good players and it's only about their score, e.g.:

I repeatedly have criticized the management of this site and all of their idolators, but repeeatedly I have not directly nor personally confronted the score holders...except to very bluntly state that their ranks are BS...NOT that they are BS, that their scores are BS.

I'm not entirely sure what the difference really is. You could reduce it by, oh say a factor of 100, and the ratios are still the same. I guess the bottom line still comes down to the question:

How would you change the scoring system to reflect what you think it should be?

You see, I'm not arguing with you. But I don't agree with you, either. I'm truly curious what you're really after. Perhaps you have a great new idea for scoring. Let's hear it.

[3.13]

In responding to those left on the ifrst page as i am posting this only after reading it
It is true that alot of high ranked players have little clubs and groups of friends. They are all premium members and play up to twenty games at once on the smae map and style.
Not only do they vs each other they also start 6 player game with the little tight knitted group of 4 at the top and two randoms who they quickly illiminate through teamwork so that they know that they for one only take and lose a large amoutn of points from them selves that they will win back in the 20 games they play at once but also take points from the two poor randoms who get pretty much gang raped by these essentially teams that kill each other when the war is over to gain ponts and a higher ranking.
The SCORING system is not flawed but the players who abuse it is

[daydream]

jpuberty is still goin at this huh...

yes, and you have yet to mention anything which shows you to have an independent, actual thinking mind. Are you capable of making any statement of your own? Must you so blatantly hide behind your own solicitations for others to attack me? Do you have no personal pride, no actual balls?

Do you have a mind? Or,do you follow. In my answer to an immediately previous post I mentioned the sheep. BAA.

I'm not posting in this thread because the original post makes, literally, no sense. Why would I waste my time on idiotic statements like that?

thats sort of funny coming from you...

[KoE_Sirius]

Well I have more medals then you and a higher rank .So I guess I am the exception to your rule .

[owenshooter]

In responding to those left on the ifrst page as i am posting this only after reading it
It is true that alot of high ranked players have little clubs and groups of friends. They are all premium members and play up to twenty games at once on the smae map and style.
Not only do they vs each other they also start 6 player game with the little tight knitted group of 4 at the top and two randoms who they quickly illiminate through teamwork so that they know that they for one only take and lose a large amoutn of points from them selves that they will win back in the 20 games they play at once but also take points from the two poor randoms who get pretty much gang raped by these essentially teams that kill each other when the war is over to gain ponts and a higher ranking.
The SCORING system is not flawed but the players who abuse it is

um... most of those games you see with 3 higher ranks at the top.. um, those are TEAM games, and anyone can join them... if you have a good team, you keep playing together. sooo, yeah, they are "essentially teams", as you stated, because they are teams. wow... i hope i wasn't this "off the reservation" when i was getting kicked around learning the CC ropes... conspiracy upon conspiracy around this place!!!-0

[joecoolfrog]

In responding to those left on the ifrst page as i am posting this only after reading it
It is true that alot of high ranked players have little clubs and groups of friends. They are all premium members and play up to twenty games at once on the smae map and style.
Not only do they vs each other they also start 6 player game with the little tight knitted group of 4 at the top and two randoms who they quickly illiminate through teamwork so that they know that they for one only take and lose a large amoutn of points from them selves that they will win back in the 20 games they play at once but also take points from the two poor randoms who get pretty much gang raped by these essentially teams that kill each other when the war is over to gain ponts and a higher ranking.
The SCORING system is not flawed but the players who abuse it is

Now supply examples please...quickly as it shouldnt take long as there are so many yes
I for example play dozens of team games every err err century !

[Snorri1234]

The scoring-system is not rigged as much as it is the game itself that is "rigged". The scoring system is just a system that rewards you with more points for winning from more people.


To get a high score is easy, there are a few ways you can achieve it but the key is that in the end the greater players still come out on top. Poo-maker is easily better at this game than others because he managed to come out on top playing against the other high-ranked people. If the top-players weren't better than others you would expect the top-players to change every day or week, but there are a select few in the top 10 who keep hovering around there. They don't get replaced by others who've noticed the trick and steamed towards the top, simply because those who've discovered the trick (team-games or circus maximus games or whatever) are worse than the higher ranked ones. The first hundred people in the list can be accused of playing those games with only higher ranks or ganging up on lower ranks or whatever, but the top always seems to look the same. Skill at playing the system is still skill, especially when you're playing against others who do exactly the same thing.

Would you claim that because the Major League Baseball teams don't play amateurs they're not really skilled?

The ones at the top are better at this game here than the others and I see no harm in them playing games against eachother. Why should I?

[Snorri1234]

As if "proof" is needed.

Why do the very highest ranked players leave so few ratings?

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.

This is not across the board, some higher scoring players seem to play a lot of unique opponents.

Most do not. Most seem to be fairly inbred.

Hopefully, this is another nail in what should be the coffin of Conquer Club’s incredibly bogus, rigged, twisted scoring system.

Actually, did anyone point out the fact that the players in the top all have enough medals to prove they've played at least 200 or more unique players since the medals came?

[ctgottapee]

edit

[chaosfactor]

As if "proof" is needed.

Why do the very highest ranked players leave so few ratings?

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.

This is not across the board, some higher scoring players seem to play a lot of unique opponents.

Most do not. Most seem to be fairly inbred.

Hopefully, this is another nail in what should be the coffin of Conquer Club’s incredibly bogus, rigged, twisted scoring system.

Why is there so much Paranoia on this site?
People always slating the Dice
In this Thread, it is the Ranking system
Threads like this normally end up in the Flame Forum where I reside (fairly inbred).

If there was a cash prize for holding certain ranks, I could understand you my friend.
But no, there is not, its all just a bit of fun, ranks go up, ranks go down.

This game has the random element in it, just like 95% of all the other games out there, sure there will be other problems attached to this as well.

If you want a game that involves no Chance, no excuses, and pure strategy, go and play chess.
Get your self Ranked there

[mpjh]

fist bump

[Blitzaholic]

Credibility is not achieved through word count. I tried to not glaze over reading your post. Basically, what I gleaned from it is:

1) You don't like the scoring system.
2) You will never like the scoring system as it is.
3) Players that don't meet your personal criteria are not necessarily the top players.
4) I'm not sure what #4 is, but I'm sure it has merit.

I can't fix your problem. If you dislike the scoring system, you need to suggest a viable alternative to the management. If you think the management will not listen to you, then you need to either alter your methodology or leave. After all, it's a gaming site, not a determination of self-worth. I did notice that after I went back and found your words on unique defeats that you left that bit out of your reply. I'm not sure why. This bit still seems to indicate that it's the basis for your argument:

Remember, there are idiots here, among us, who believe the current system is not rigged. They fervently believe that those who adamantly refuse to play more than 1% of this community are gods...and why? Because they are part of the tiny, very small universe of TWITS who play only themselves, OVER and OVER and OVER.

As for my list of players I know are tough players, here's a few from the top 50 or so. I only am including players that I have played against or on a team with. Given the reputation of some, especially the freestyle guys like Fabled, I'm sure they are quite deadly to play against as well. But, again, I digress. Here is that list:

Poo-maker
Scott-Land
Warsteiner
Mike Doherty
Big Whiskey
BENJIKAT IS DEAD (Also Benjikat in his previous life)
Blitzaholic
MOBAJOBG
Teylen

There are probably others, but that's off the top of my head. If you acknowledge that the top scoreholders are good players and it's only about their score, e.g.:

I repeatedly have criticized the management of this site and all of their idolators, but repeeatedly I have not directly nor personally confronted the score holders...except to very bluntly state that their ranks are BS...NOT that they are BS, that their scores are BS.

I'm not entirely sure what the difference really is. You could reduce it by, oh say a factor of 100, and the ratios are still the same. I guess the bottom line still comes down to the question:

How would you change the scoring system to reflect what you think it should be?

You see, I'm not arguing with you. But I don't agree with you, either. I'm truly curious what you're really after. Perhaps you have a great new idea for scoring. Let's hear it.

great post dbz

I would add other notable names

comic boy
joecoolfrog
genghis khan ca
sjnap
maniacmath17
mhennigan
all thota (smiles)

[Blitzaholic]

There is nothing wrong with the scoring system!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is fair to ALL



No matter how Lackattack changes it, there will always be some complaining about it.



So, let it be, accept it or try to be in the process of accepting it.

[joecoolfrog]

while i don't like it, the closed knit groups, i completely understand it and accept it the way CC is currently set

if you like playing CC, with quality players that actually show up and don't act like assholes, then you basically have to keep a short list of players, otherwise all the idiots will join your games in the open and ruin the experience

this is not the fault of the top tier though, this is the sites fault for not allowing minimum/maximum score criteria in creating games. yes i already know the rehearsed response about how newbs would have no one to play which is horsecrap. newbs don't want to play the pros and get their ass handed to them, which in turn lowers the amount of potential quality players as the newbs quickly abandoned the site rather than stick around and learn, once they are abused are raped and/or bitched at for playing like a newb.

and obviously every scoring system can be gamed a little bit, and some aspects will be skewed - the acceptable bias. overall though the scoring system accomplishes its job with minimal complexity.

There is a simple solution - set up private games ( team or single ) and advertise by PM or in call outs - others do it and it works !

[chaosfactor]

There is nothing wrong with the scoring system!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is fair to ALL



No matter how Lackattack changes it, there will always be some complaining about it.



So, let it be, accept it or try to be in the process of accepting it.

I go with Blitz,

The simple answer to this argument is, if you think you know of a better way to fix it, well... tell us, tell us in machine code, binary , windows, linux, or what-ever.

Critics, I often find, are the laziest people on the planet.

They think if they shout out loud enough, some-one will eventually come down and make it all better for them, for them-selves, with the least amount of effort.
Critics I love them! They make normal people look good.

[drisk]

I think the rating system is better, the tags area bit too much, responses are good. The only problem is ratings are being erased for the people who complain which are usually the upper ranks.A rating should should not be erased by cc. If its a fluke the balance of the ratings should tell the true story.

[FabledIntegral]

I think the rating system is better, the tags area bit too much, responses are good. The only problem is ratings are being erased for the people who complain which are usually the upper ranks.A rating should should not be erased by cc. If its a fluke the balance of the ratings should tell the true story.

What the f*ck are you talking about? No they aren't.

[Bruceswar]

I think the rating system is better, the tags area bit too much, responses are good. The only problem is ratings are being erased for the people who complain which are usually the upper ranks.A rating should should not be erased by cc. If its a fluke the balance of the ratings should tell the true story.

Ratings cannot be deleted or removed, unlike feedback which could.

[ctgottapee]

[note: if you look at your 'ratings left' tab, you'll see that you can withdraw them, so they can be erased]

while i don't like it, the closed knit groups, i completely understand it and accept it the way CC is currently set

if you like playing CC, with quality players that actually show up and don't act like assholes, then you basically have to keep a short list of players, otherwise all the idiots will join your games in the open and ruin the experience

this is not the fault of the top tier though, this is the sites fault for not allowing minimum/maximum score criteria in creating games. yes i already know the rehearsed response about how newbs would have no one to play which is horsecrap. newbs don't want to play the pros and get their ass handed to them, which in turn lowers the amount of potential quality players as the newbs quickly abandoned the site rather than stick around and learn, once they are abused are raped and/or bitched at for playing like a newb.

and obviously every scoring system can be gamed a little bit, and some aspects will be skewed - the acceptable bias. overall though the scoring system accomplishes its job with minimal complexity.

[chaosfactor]

so gotta pee?

Why do not all the high ranking players hang out and play the high ranking players till the end do us part?

Can you see the flaw in that my friend:?

How did the high ranking players get their rank....?