Higher Ranks protecting There Position

[tals]

I've seen DuggCar use this one as well and personally I think it is poor sports - it almost strikes me as being construed as a secret alliance if you go into a game knowing who you are going to be allied to

Basically if someone of a higher rank is going to loose he will purposely destroy himself and put himself to death to allow the next higher ranking to win rather than a lower ranked

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=118470

I'm green - game is pretty much sown up but blue purposely cleared all armies down to one when it failed to take red.

Thoughts?

Tals

[Pedronicus]

Dugcarr has got a massive issue with the current scoring system. Other high point scoring players do the same (I've done it once or twice)

I'm afraid it's just part and parcel of the game.

[tals]

Dugcarr has got a massive issue with the current scoring system. Other high point scoring players do the same (I've done it once or twice)

I'm afraid it's just part and parcel of the game.

Having not had an issue with it - if it effectively means higher level players do this then i'd prefer to have equal points and have a fair fight than one like this where I have no chance of winning if all 3 players are going to do this on me.

Tals

[tals]

OK posted a suggestion request re points - lets level the playing field

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 196#147196

Tals

[altkaese]

As long as there is the slightest chance for me to win a game, I try everything to win the game. I don't care whom I attack, if it's a private or a general, if a player is too strong, I attack him.

If the slightest hope fades (In a game I played: I was down to two countries, so I tried to eliminate another player, a major, to get his cards and keep a small, a very small chance to win the game, pretty close fight, I tried till the end, but I couldn't get that last country. Now I was down to around 7-8 countries, 1 army each. So I told yellow, another captain, he can eliminate the major and myself, and I hope he will win the game, as I just lose 20 points then instead of 30.).

Of course I prefer losing 20 points to losing 30 points.

My personal opinion is: As long as you have the slightest chance of winning, try to win. When you are absolutely unable to do anything useful, you should minimise your losses, which means you want the highest ranked of the remaining players to win.

I think this is legitimate.

[andre the giant]

I'm going to have to side on losing FEWER points. Fact of the matter is, I play to win. I play to survive. I don't give up or suicide myself, but if I'm going to make a risky manuver, I try to do it in a way where if I fail, I'll be eliminated by a superior player rather than a private with 700 points. It's all part of the strategy.

[Skittlesandmnms]

I've seen DuggCar use this one as well and personally I think it is poor sports - it almost strikes me as being construed as a secret alliance if you go into a game knowing who you are going to be allied to

Basically if someone of a higher rank is going to loose he will purposely destroy himself and put himself to death to allow the next higher ranking to win rather than a lower ranked

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=118470

I'm green - game is pretty much sown up but blue purposely cleared all armies down to one when it failed to take red.

Thoughts?

Tals

I do that even though I am not highly ranked. I lose less points if a major wins then if a private does.

[Pedronicus]

I do that even though I am not highly ranked. I lose less points if a major wins then if a private does.

play me! and lose! - then you'll only lose 8 points. It's fun losing to me - I'm like anaesthetic.

[Sammy gags]

wut r u guys talking about, dugcarr is THE man

[s.xkitten]

no....just no...he's not

[shultz]

we should have rooms for higher ranked players and lower ranked players that way thing will be all square

[tals]

wut r u guys talking about, dugcarr is THE man

I think it's only me that mentioned DC - only because I checked a few of his games and they seemed to have a common theme.

/snake says - don't take me on because if we loose then you'll loose more points to Noob

/innocent ahh yeah good point - hadn't appretiated the points system

/snake man don't you understand the points system

and then they get eaten. So played DC in those situations - albeit its not risk as I know it

Tals

[Evil Semp]

I agree with Tals on this. If your that afraid of losing points only play with higher ranked players. How can you say you are playing to win if you throw the game to someone else. No matter how weak you are you still have the small chance to win.

[Pedronicus]

I agree with Tals on this. If your that afraid of losing points only play with higher ranked players. How can you say you are playing to win if you throw the game to someone else. No matter how weak you are you still have the small chance to win.

I'm growing fond of Evil Semp (I think it's his subliminal name thats winning me over)

He always pops up with the voice of sensible reason in a conversation.

Where as I just barge in and blurt some old bollox like this.

Mr Semp

[Evil Semp]

Awww!! your making me blush.

[gavin_sidhu]

Thats just bad sportsmanship. The majority of my suicides are in no cards games (ive stopped playing them) and are at the strongest player.

[reverend_kyle]

What are you talking about Evil Semp is a total noob..


He even admits it openly

clicky hover if you feel uncomfortable.

[SirSebstar]

this is shit. well i am a noob. Listen or not, i dont care either way.

really this is as i see it.A big nono in this game is secret alliances.
E.g. an alliance you both agreed to but never mentioned in the gamechat.

If you go and screw over a private(noob or whatever, oh but he is still more likely to win then you, looser)just so you might not have to loose to him, but only to a major.
Well in my book thats a pre-agreed secret alliance. A standing arrangement. And it should be grounds enough for a banning.

Basicly, if you have an issue with the way point are lost (try winning for a change) you shoul either play only those closely match(aka password games with invites) or not at all.
feel free to make some useful contribution on an alternative scoringsystem, that preferably is even easyer then the current one.
for dugcarrs sake i propose the following.
Every completed game should add 10 points for dugcarr's score.
Any game dugcarr plays is shoul mean he takes all points, evn when he losses.

happy now?!

really, is it that much to ask to try and keep games a little fair?
I dont get it. Risk is a nice game. Ranking only shows me i can win more gamepoints then i loose. its not that big a deal.
But since it is.
Maybe we should abandon ranking completely. No ranks, no envy.
no more dishonest, dodgy, fraudulent and hypocritical gaming tactics please.

SirSebstar

[dugcarr1]

i rarley join games. and i dont alli with people from the begining of game based on there rank.


if i have to chose whom to attack or take out or weeken or let win rank does play a roll in my desion making. not a huge roll but i do consider it.

i apoligize if my level of play or stratigy or reasoning is beond u pal.

i do dislike the point system and will use it to my advantage untill a better one is in place.


how ever, not like blitz uses it.

my sole purpose of playing is NOT to get points , unlike some players.


i wish there was a diferent way of keeping track or we were able to keep our score a secret so i wouldnt have to factor in that shit in my decision making, and so people (gator24) wouldnt lose on purpose so when they partnered with a high ranking player to win (blitz) in a doubles or triple game the high ranking player would get way more points.
and so people like the douche bag 3 posts up wouldnt target the higher ranking players just beacuse of there score.
and so people wouldnt have to create secret clubs with passwords to gaurd agaist this well alianating new players .

bottom line is yes there should be a way or ways of keeping score or track of wins and loses but the score system we have now is not sutable for this site or game and is creatting an assload of unspoken and spoken problems.

Dugcarr for CC president!

[SirSebstar]

if also put in 5 cents by siggesting a different pointsystem.
but maybe we should do away with points completely, till some other satisfying system can be found. Its better then allowing something like this to chase away players

[Pedronicus]

Dugcarr for CC president!

*shudders* The first president to rule with an iron oar

(or as dug would say; "Iron Ore")

[tals]

my sole purpose of playing is NOT to get points , unlike some players.

Wasn't really sure what qute to use, but i've now randonly checked 3 of your games standard where you were playing against a low level. In 2 of those you used points as a reason for your alliance.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=119478

2006-11-27 19:06:52 - dugcarr1: i am a man of my word....have u red that,,,? and if we take u out me and blue will a 50 50 of winnig,,,,and if i win he loses 11 points,,, if u win he loses 23

Now its not against the rules but if you go into games with the view that you will ally with a higher ranking player due to points it is a secret alliance. Personally i'd prefer to win because I was better (I know you are good) rather than relying on abusing points system to your advantage - as it really is meant to be only a marker.

Tals

p.s I should add they arn't quite as stupid as the game I played which caused me to raise this. In that blue purposely reduced all his armies to 1 to make a take over easy by yellow. Stupid thing was yellow was next and he would probably have taken blue anyway - but he may not have done and that is what risk is all about.

[SAIst]

my sole purpose of playing is NOT to get points , unlike some players.

lmao

I'm new here, but I've still seen ~50 posts from you bitching about points on the forums...

[Evil Semp]

I appears that the point system was OK when the higher ranking players were getting the big wins. Now that they have more to lose they want to change it. Just doesn't seem right to me.

[tals]

I appears that the point system was OK when the higher ranking players were getting the big wins. Now that they have more to lose they want to change it. Just doesn't seem right to me.

Agreed - i'm almost tempted to start quoting and shaming players - just come across another very respected player that had a real old moan because they lost more points in a game.

They really need to get a life and win because they are the best

Tals