More "proof" that the scoring system is rigged

[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.

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.

I agree. But the system made me a tool. I don't like the ratings, I "abuse" them by not leaving any negatives. I regard anything less than a 5 to be a negative.

It is the SYSTEM which is screwed up,not your interpretation or my own. I think we agree, we just have different ways of dealing with the mess. And then they went and added TAGS.

[FabledIntegral]

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.

You just made the dumbest fucking post to date in this threat - only a fool believes skill is a major factor? Go kill yourself.

[Bruceswar]

"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.

Total BS... If this were all luck as you say then everybody would win 50% of the time. That is not happening. Not even in 2 man games. You just seem very bitter toward higher ranked players who play games that require more SKILL than luck of a 2 player game. Sure playing 1 vs 1 has some skill to it, or else like I said all these players would have a 50% win ratio. Playing multi player games even has more skill as there are more players to contend with. If you take out player C, then player A could take you Player B out if you do not do it carefully. When you get into 8 man games there are 7 others to watch out for. You cannot just go slamming your armies into whoever and expect to win. Surely you would have figured out this game is a game of skill with SOME luck involved.

[Bruceswar]

I agree. But the system made me a tool. I don't like the ratings, I "abuse" them by not leaving any negatives. I regard anything less than a 5 to be a negative.

It is the SYSTEM which is screwed up,not your interpretation or my own. I think we agree, we just have different ways of dealing with the mess. And then they went and added TAGS.

So wait you agree that the system (I happen to not like it) is messed up, but it is a direct tie into the scoreboard. HMMM seems very flawed.

[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.

They don't play enough people to merit my attention. Conquer Club's scoring system rewards them PRECISELY because they avoid ALMOST ALL PLAYERS HERE.
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.

[General Mojo]

You just made the dumbest fucking post to date in this threat - only a fool believes skill is a major factor? Go kill yourself.

[Scott-Land]

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.

A little presumptuous Bruce- as you've never played Seq Dubs and Trips and neither does Poo. I haven't acknowledged Quads as a game type yet- hehee.


Although he may well be the best all around singles player.

[JBoy]

you sir, have proved yourself a complete idiot, joecoolfrog is one of the best players i have played, i've actually learned quite alot by playing him. I've also played you as I was coming up through the ranks and put you on my ignore list because you were a fool, as you're avatar would suggest..

[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.

A little presumptuous Bruce- as you've never played Seq Dubs and Trips and neither does Poo.

But scott we all know poo would not have such a hard time adapting to this setting. After all it is not all that different. I have played a few doubles games in my time and did on them. I did not find them all that different. The point is that while settings may be a bit different the strategies, are not too far apart. Sure they will differ for obvious reasons, but most of the better players would be at least decent at them. I am sure Poo would do just fine!

[poo-maker]

"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.

*sigh* It's like talking to an idiot. I just explained to you exactly what i think of 2 player, seq, flat rate, unlim. Do you disagree with me in thinking that those settings are mainly luck based? Do you really expect me to play you after knowing what i think of those settings?

Of course this game is fundamentally based on your drop and dice. But, after that, you can choose whether or not you want to play settings where skill is the major factor or luck is. I know exactly which side I will always choose. Hence, my 80% win percentage in 2 player games compared to your 59%.

Saying that "Only a FOOL believes skill is a major factor" and that there is no room for diplomacy in this game really says it all about you. You are a mediocre player, who uses no diplomacy, plays luck based settings and are a complete cock.

Now I remember why I don't reply to these threads. Always the same bitching, whining and "challenges" from the same breed of lower ranked players at cc. As has been said many times by a recently departed cc member "suck it up, cupcake".

[Scott-Land]

you sir, have proved yourself a complete idiot, joecoolfrog is one of the best players i have played, i've actually learned quite alot by playing him. I've also played you as I was coming up through the ranks and put you on my ignore list because you were a fool, as you're avatar would suggest..

You should use quotes Jboy- as I have no idea whom you are speaking to or about.

But scott we all know poo would not have such a hard time adapting to this setting. After all it is not all that different. I have played a few doubles games in my time and did on them. I did not find them all that different. The point is that while settings may be a bit different the strategies, are not too far apart. Sure they will differ for obvious reasons, but most of the better players would be at least decent at them. I am sure Poo would do just fine!

Like I said Bruce, a bit presumptuous. I like to give players credit for being the best after their accomplishments not before- to say so beforehand isn't very credible.

[Bruceswar]

you sir, have proved yourself a complete idiot, joecoolfrog is one of the best players i have played, i've actually learned quite alot by playing him. I've also played you as I was coming up through the ranks and put you on my ignore list because you were a fool, as you're avatar would suggest..

You should use quotes Jboy- as I have no idea whom you are speaking to or about.

But scott we all know poo would not have such a hard time adapting to this setting. After all it is not all that different. I have played a few doubles games in my time and did on them. I did not find them all that different. The point is that while settings may be a bit different the strategies, are not too far apart. Sure they will differ for obvious reasons, but most of the better players would be at least decent at them. I am sure Poo would do just fine!

Like I said Bruce, a bit presumptuous. I like to give players credit for being the best after their accomplishments not before- to say so beforehand isn't very credible.[/quote]

Fair enough. But remember you went in and ran some triples games and came out smelling like a rose. Point is that you had not played many, but still kicked butt.

[FabledIntegral]

you sir, have proved yourself a complete idiot, joecoolfrog is one of the best players i have played, i've actually learned quite alot by playing him. I've also played you as I was coming up through the ranks and put you on my ignore list because you were a fool, as you're avatar would suggest..

You should use quotes Jboy- as I have no idea whom you are speaking to or about.

I would take it jpliberty as he has constantly talked bad about him in like 4 posts, and was asking everyone to give him evidence to show that joe is a good player.

[JBoy]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

you sir, have proved yourself a complete idiot, joecoolfrog is one of the best players i have played, i've actually learned quite alot by playing him. I've also played you as I was coming up through the ranks and put you on my ignore list because you were a fool, as you're avatar would suggest..

You should use quotes Jboy- as I have no idea whom you are speaking to or about.

I would take it jpliberty as he has constantly talked bad about him in like 4 posts, and was asking everyone to give him evidence to show that joe is a good player.

[Scott-Land]

you sir, have proved yourself a complete idiot, joecoolfrog is one of the best players i have played, i've actually learned quite alot by playing him. I've also played you as I was coming up through the ranks and put you on my ignore list because you were a fool, as you're avatar would suggest..

You should use quotes Jboy- as I have no idea whom you are speaking to or about.

I would take it jpliberty as he has constantly talked bad about him in like 4 posts, and was asking everyone to give him evidence to show that joe is a good player.

I agree- Frog is an excellent player.

[AAFitz]

wow, that truly was a creative reason... now if you said that aliens told you it was rigged, it would have been even better...but your ideas were pretty good too.

[joecoolfrog]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

So bitter for something so unimportant, is it puberty that is bothering you ?

[Scott-Land]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

So bitter for something so unimportant, is it puberty that is bothering you ?

If there isn't a scoreboard to gauge yourself by or to climb, the site would be non-existent. It's the competitive nature in us that brings us back to the shit dice and whiny asses you see in these Forums. A scoreboard creates goals however small or large; otherwise we'd just come to play an occasional game. There wouldn't be a Map Forum, Callouts or Clans without it. It's what brings players back to this site.

[joecoolfrog]

If I were to give one reason why the majority of players are at the top of the CC scoreboard it is because they are competitive, win or lose they always learn something from a game and never give up. Pretty much anybody with a desire to learn and the requisite commitment can get close to the top of the tree but it takes hard work, much easier of course not to bother and simply abuse those who do !

[FabledIntegral]

If I were to give one reason why the majority of players are at the top of the CC scoreboard it is because they are competitive, win or lose they always learn something from a game and never give up. Pretty much anybody with a desire to learn and the requisite commitment can get close to the top of the tree but it takes hard work, much easier of course not to bother and simply abuse those who do !

Think you might want to reread your first sentence mate...

[jpliberty]

wow, that truly was a creative reason... now if you said that aliens told you it was rigged, it would have been even better...but your ideas were pretty good too.

And your record, aafitz is far better than most of the slime who take up space on CC's Scoreboard.

You actually play real people and alot of them. I have stated that my criticisms are not "across the board" and that some few of "you" actually don't fit my criticism.

Most do.

joecoolguy is one, poo-maker is another, and MOST of the top 100, slimy weasels, do fit the criticisms I have made.

That being said, though I create my own games, and although I have one of the absolute highest game numbers, you never have joined one of mine.
Since I, alone I think, at least when compared with the "elite" scorers", have played ANYONE, the fact that you have avoided me is somewhat stunning.

Few avoid me, I'm here most of the time.

High scorers avoid me, like the avoid all the rabble.

Come forth AA, I'd like to kick your ass back to China.

Come forth, let me whup your ass!

Realize, of course, that this game is almost ALL luck, or do not, and suffer the fate of the poor poo, the idiot who will comment but not actually play.

[jpliberty]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

So bitter for something so unimportant, is it puberty that is bothering you ?

Your growing of age or mine? Some twerp like you suggests that I have idolatry in mind when in fact you feel your UNEARNED rank is a thing of value.

You are a cheat. I've said it plainly, and you will not, cannot refute it with any facts. You cheat, and you want us to acknowledge you as some kind of champion.

You are a cheat. Pure and simple, and I DO apply that to MOST of the highest scorers on CC. Most of them are cheats, if not all.

You, you twerp, never have addressed the question. Why can you not play more than a few fractions of 1% of the players on this board, if you indeed are a "master" of some sorts?

You lying pathetic CHEAT.

[jpliberty]

It's fun doing a thread like this.

Multihunters, get ready. Get geared. Just start at the top of the list and you will find FAR MORE multis than any previous "effort" by the esteemed administration of Conquer Club.

I suggest you start with the idiots on this thread who have challenged but not answered my central point, which is that they play against almost none of us.

They are cheats.

I suggest that is WRONG.

Very simple, very real.

[jpliberty]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

So bitter for something so unimportant, is it puberty that is bothering you ?

If there isn't a scoreboard to gauge yourself by or to climb, the site would be non-existent. It's the competitive nature in us that brings us back to the shit dice and whiny asses you see in these Forums. A scoreboard creates goals however small or large; otherwise we'd just come to play an occasional game. There wouldn't be a Map Forum, Callouts or Clans without it. It's what brings players back to this site.

Oh? Of course you would say that. King of the inbreds. Try playing actual games against actual opponents. You twerp.

As none of you (high scorers) will I have challenged you to respond. None of you can. Because you play so few of the people here, because you scam for points (you, Scott-Land are one of the most obvious offenders) you choose to believe that the rabble will accept you.

You are a liar, your score is false, and it is aided and abetted by Conquer Club.

You cheat.

[AAFitz]

im sending you the game numbers to 5 games... good luck

For the record though.. your point is completely backwards... its much harder gaining points from the top players than the less ranked players. Joecoolfrog is one hard guy to beat. He plays few games against the best players on the site, surgically and strategically, while players like me take the majority of my points from lesser qualified players.

Youve actually proven the usefulness and reason for the scoring system most unwittingly Im sure