Moderator: Community Team

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
in other words the Microsoft gamer program needs more bloody fixing than CC.MeDeFe wrote:And I think you meant to write "reward our pets when they're good, and almost every time they do something we want them to do" in the final paragraph.
always proof-read when commenting on someones spelllingdaydream wrote:while i dont know exactly what you are trying to tell us... its medals. metal is either a type of music or what or a type of chemical elements. just wante to threow that in there.
i have to say while i found the part about elo relatively interesting, none of this has not been said before...
actually noticed that myself afterwards but thought it wasnt too terrible. i got a kick out of all the metal though... gives the speed-medal a whole new meaning.AAFitz wrote:always proof-read when commenting on someones spelllingdaydream wrote:while i dont know exactly what you are trying to tell us... its medals. metal is either a type of music or what or a type of chemical elements. just wante to threow that in there.
i have to say while i found the part about elo relatively interesting, none of this has not been said before...
![]()
3 L's

'sAAFitz wrote:damn.. you didnt take the bait
eh... apostrophes dont countTimminz wrote:'sAAFitz wrote:damn.. you didnt take the bait
True ! so why have medals at all then?oVo wrote:Participating in a good game with good players is it's own reward
and winning that just puts extra icing on the cake...
with or without metal
It is my view that games using the escalating cards, simple just add more chance and luck to the game than skill. Thus coming is 1st would not matter at all. if we look at the top ten players on the score board Warsteiner has the most wins but placed 4th, torcav2 has the best percentage yet is place 10th, and Thai Robert has the least amount of games played even amongst most players at cc yet is ranked 8th. The point is take more measurements to get a more accurate score. If your right and the worst of players are eliminated last, then what does that say about the one who came in 1st? [That he was the luckiest or the worst player? ]FabledIntegral wrote:Coming in second place matters little. As you play CC more, you will come to find out more than 50% of hte games are escalating, or how classic risk is played. Often more than not, especially in casual games, every player dies in the same turn, in what is called a "sweep." Often more than not, the better players are taken out first to neutralize the threat, and the people that played very poorly are taken out last. Thus your rewarding of 2nd place would be very very bad for the system, because those who actually played better die first.
ah your right the percentage should be 12.5% i will correct that. and i do assume that only because, 1. i assume most players that like to play the game have a certain basic skill level, and 2. the game is partly based on luck and chance, not skill. Therefore most player should have a 12.5% win rate irregardless of there Rank or ratings or points.FabledIntegral wrote: Secondly, your scenario with 1v1 vs 8-player ffa is also flawed, because you assume someone who plays an 8-player can win 20% of the time. Statistically, they should only win 1/8 games, each person winning once, thus there is no more to gain from 8-players than 1v1, where you should win 1/2 times.
Escalating is how classic RISK is played on teh board. Escalating requires the least luck out of the three available gametypes. It requires the most strategy on where to block and move on the board. No cards depend highly upon drop. Flat rate is the biggest joke out of the three.WOTE wrote:It is my view that games using the escalating cards, simple just add more chance and luck to the game than skill. Thus coming is 1st would not matter at all. if we look at the top ten players on the score board Warsteiner has the most wins but placed 4th, torcav2 has the best percentage yet is place 10th, and Thai Robert has the least amount of games played even amongst most players at cc yet is ranked 8th. The point is take more meserments to get a more accurate score. If your right and the wrost of players are eliminated last, then what does that say about the one who came in 1st? [That he was the luckiest or the worst player? ]FabledIntegral wrote:Coming in second place matters little. As you play CC more, you will come to find out more than 50% of hte games are escalating, or how classic risk is played. Often more than not, especially in casual games, every player dies in the same turn, in what is called a "sweep." Often more than not, the better players are taken out first to neutralize the threat, and the people that played very poorily are taken out last. Thus your rewarding of 2nd place would be very very bad for the system, because those who actually played better die first.
1 poo-maker 4937 1187 612 (52%) Conqueror 4.9 Ireland
2 SkyT 4758 1765 1423 (81%) Field Marshal 4.7 United States
3 Scott-Land 4555 3198 1127 (35%) Field Marshal 4.7 United States
4 Warsteiner 4423 2388 1426 (60%) General 4.2 Netherlands
5 RashidJelzin 4387 1714 693 (40%) General 4.6 Germany
6 rabbiton 4292 1190 762 (64%) General 4.4 United States
7 King_Herpes 3768 1042 585 (56%) General 4.7 United States
8 Thai Robert 3714 166 99 (60%) Brigadier 4.8 Thailand
9 fantasianasian 3546 492 195 (40%) General 4.7 United States
10 torcav2 3544 1154 1008 (87%) General 4.6 Colombia
Compare that to other game ranking systems like chess, and Go. do you not see an unbalance here? or do you think this system is perfect?
ah your right the percentage should be 12.5% i will correct that. and i do assume that only because, 1. i assume most players that like to play the game have a certain basic skill level, and 2. the game is partly basic on luck and chance, not skill. Therefore most player should have a 12.5% win rate irregardless of there Rank or ratings or points.FabledIntegral wrote: Secondly, your scenario with 1v1 vs 8-player ffa is also flawed, because you assume someone who plays an 8-player can win 20% of the time. Statistically, they should only win 1/8 games, each person winning once, thus there is no more to gain from 8-players than 1v1, where you should win 1/2 times.
I DID!AAFitz wrote:always proof-read when commenting on someones spelllingdaydream wrote:while i dont know exactly what you are trying to tell us... its medals. metal is either a type of music or what or a type of chemical elements. just wante to threow that in there.
i have to say while i found the part about elo relatively interesting, none of this has not been said before...
![]()
3 L's
heavily misguided!!!FabledIntegral wrote:FabledIntegral wrote: You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.
I bet if we played 8, 8-player games, I would come out winning at least 3. I'd be surprised if you won more than 1. Maybe arrogance though - you could simply be a new person to the site that's a veteran player. You never answered me under what conditions you try to take continents though!WOTE wrote:heavily misguided!!!FabledIntegral wrote:FabledIntegral wrote: You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.......
.........
If Risk is = carpentry . Then chess is = all the other trades put together.
Hummm lets see... how about a 1vs 1 best of seven, classical map, no cards, adjacent movement, u 1st me 2nd. thus you can see my play in action. I leaned to play Risk at the age 10. Chess from the Age of 7, I also play Diplomacy, D-Day, AOE, Hockey, Golf, poker once in a while, crib, bridge, crazy 8's, and a host of other games.FabledIntegral wrote:I bet if we played 8, 8-player games, I would come out winning at least 3. I'd be surprised if you won more than 1. Maybe arrogance though - you could simply be a new person to the site that's a veteran player. You never answered me under what conditions you try to take continents though!WOTE wrote:heavily misguided!!!FabledIntegral wrote:FabledIntegral wrote: You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.......
.........
If Risk is = carpentry . Then chess is = all the other trades put together.
As someone who comes in second place a LOT, I completely disagree with FabledIntegral on this point. If you watch "the masters" play, you'll see that the strongest opponent gets left for LAST specifically BECAUSE he's the strongest. Especially in escalating, the "sweep" begins by eliminating the weak, easy kills to get their cards and leveraging them to get to the stronger players (who have better positions and more armies).FabledIntegral wrote:Coming in second place matters little. As you play CC more, you will come to find out more than 50% of hte games are escalating, or how classic risk is played. Often more than not, especially in casual games, every player dies in the same turn, in what is called a "sweep." Often more than not, the better players are taken out first to neutralize the threat, and the people that played very poorily are taken out last. Thus your rewarding of 2nd place would be very very bad for the system, because those who actually played better die first.
1v1 determines nothing - it is decided majorly by dice, who goes first, etc. You can not choose who goes first.WOTE wrote:Hummm lets see... how about a 1vs 1 best of seven, classical map, no cards, adjacent movement, u 1st me 2nd. thus you can see my play in action. I leaned to play Risk at the age 10. Chess from the Age of 7, I also play Diplomacy, D-Day, AOE, Hockey, Golf, poker once in a while, crib, bridge, crazy 8's, and a host of other games.FabledIntegral wrote:I bet if we played 8, 8-player games, I would come out winning at least 3. I'd be surprised if you won more than 1. Maybe arrogance though - you could simply be a new person to the site that's a veteran player. You never answered me under what conditions you try to take continents though!WOTE wrote:heavily misguided!!!FabledIntegral wrote:FabledIntegral wrote: You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.......
.........
If Risk is = carpentry . Then chess is = all the other trades put together.
I take continents any way that I can, invade, one at a time, sweep, whatever happens to be the best move at the time. It also dependents on the conditions of the game. the cards,fort movement, number of players, and if I am a target or not. and of course most of all how hard I pray to the dice gods!