Sick of it. Absolutly sick of being teamed.

[JoshyBoy]

Do a quick search on his posts - we were discussing things over a couple of threads. Quit trolling, why bring that up, and if you are going to be rude, do it properly. Everyone else is trying to answer the OP, why are you being offensive?

OP if you think you're being teamed, report it in the c and a forum.

What planet are you on dude? Seriously, get a grip. Your clearly trolling me. I wasn't offensive, I was just stating facts thereby answering the OP.

Anyways, like I said... I've stopped caring. So post all you want, foe me, whatever.

Errrr, I was talking to woodruff?

But you were talking about me dude

Let me clear this up:

I said that you, Joshyboy, and I were discussing things in several threads. I told woodruff not to troll. I told woodruff to be properly rude. I told woodruff he was being offensive.

The only thing I said about you was that you and I were having a discussion. Quit being so sensitive pansyboy Oooops

Two Things. First of all, pansyboy? That's pansyman to you fruitcake. Better be careful, heavy stuff like this belongs in Fla... never mind. And second... Whoooooops... sorry. My bad.

[xelabale]

Of course there's nothing insulting about pansies. Nice flowers. I'm sick of being sick of being teamed.

[JoshyBoy]

Of course there's nothing insulting about pansies. Nice flowers. I'm sick of being sick of being teamed.

Me too.

[HayesA]

Original poster,

Rank reflects not only skill but also the game types you play. Don't blame the dice and don't blame other players. If you want to rise in points, you must leave the kiddie games behind. Learn how to play 6 player-8 player escalating games properly (do a search through the strategy sub-forum and you will find everything you need to know about it). Additionally, find a mentor. Unless risk just really isn't your thing, you should be able to get over 2k in a matter of a few months if you do this. Then learn how to play teams games to easily maintain and even increase score.

Thanks for the advice. Appreciate the tips.

Actually, can I request this closed? It's served it's purpose.

[salr15]

Original poster,

Rank reflects not only skill but also the game types you play. Don't blame the dice and don't blame other players. If you want to rise in points, you must leave the kiddie games behind. Learn how to play 6 player-8 player escalating games properly (do a search through the strategy sub-forum and you will find everything you need to know about it). Additionally, find a mentor. Unless risk just really isn't your thing, you should be able to get over 2k in a matter of a few months if you do this. Then learn how to play teams games to easily maintain and even increase score.

Thanks for the advice. Appreciate the tips.

Actually, can I request this closed? It's served it's purpose.

You could request a lot of things, like I could request to have this forum turn into a pizza. But that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Leave the closing to the professionals and back to learning the game cupcake.

[Falkomagno]

or suffer the consequences

Speaking of consequences...

When will you get warned for your distasteful avatar?

You are talking about yourself don't you?



What's the deal with a couple of ballet dancer

[Falkomagno]

Choose a complicated map, (not City of Mogul because to much super high level player use it) and become expert in that. so you can host or join that kind of map, and pwn some no-clue players on it

Yes, because that is certainly the way to get the most enjoyment out of the site.

However, if Falkomagno derives enjoyment from 'pwn(ing)' no-clue players' , then why should anyone question it?

I wasn't questioning whether he does. I was questioning his suggestion that other people should, as well.

If I suggest that, it's because I think that enhace your level, and becomes the game more enjoyable

[prismsaber]

Original poster,

Rank reflects not only skill but also the game types you play. Don't blame the dice and don't blame other players. If you want to rise in points, you must leave the kiddie games behind. Learn how to play 6 player-8 player escalating games properly (do a search through the strategy sub-forum and you will find everything you need to know about it). Additionally, find a mentor. Unless risk just really isn't your thing, you should be able to get over 2k in a matter of a few months if you do this. Then learn how to play teams games to easily maintain and even increase score.

Not true. Points can be made from no cards and flat rate singles games. I should know, because that's where I get my points from!

Or how about scholtz? There's another player making sick points, this time from 2.1 no cards singles. In fact, most of those I invite to my private games are 2000+ players who mainly play singles no cards/flat rate 6 to 8 player. I would agree that breaking 3,000 is a stretch from these settings, but 2,000 + is surely respectable enough?

Kiddie games???

Sure, points CAN be made from flat rate and no cards games, but my intention wasn't to discuss possibilities but rather the most efficient way to reach one's goals. I'm simply trying to help lower ranked players who are interesting in rising on the scoreboard. Getting a high rank isn't important to everyone, but for those ambitious new players out there who do want a shiny insignia, they would do well to heed my advice.

I certainly believe a skilled player can and will maintain 2k points no matter what settings he plays. However, like you alluded to, there comes a point when flat rate simply won't take you any higher because it is a more luck based game setting. A quick look at the scoreboard will tell you all you need to know about which games get people the most points. If you look at a top 100 player you will probably see a load of team games or freestyle games. If you look at the average striper you will see a hodgepodge of no cards, flat rate, oddball maps, and 1v1.

You can be the best no cards player on the site but still be ranked lower than the #25 escalating player.

Here's a list of the game styles, from top to bottom, that when mastered get you highest on the scoreboard:

1. freestyle
2. teams (with an emphasis on triples and quads)
3. 6-8 player escalating
4. who cares
5. 1v1 sequential

[Mr Changsha]

Original poster,

Rank reflects not only skill but also the game types you play. Don't blame the dice and don't blame other players. If you want to rise in points, you must leave the kiddie games behind. Learn how to play 6 player-8 player escalating games properly (do a search through the strategy sub-forum and you will find everything you need to know about it). Additionally, find a mentor. Unless risk just really isn't your thing, you should be able to get over 2k in a matter of a few months if you do this. Then learn how to play teams games to easily maintain and even increase score.

Not true. Points can be made from no cards and flat rate singles games. I should know, because that's where I get my points from!

Or how about scholtz? There's another player making sick points, this time from 2.1 no cards singles. In fact, most of those I invite to my private games are 2000+ players who mainly play singles no cards/flat rate 6 to 8 player. I would agree that breaking 3,000 is a stretch from these settings, but 2,000 + is surely respectable enough?

Kiddie games???

Sure, points CAN be made from flat rate and no cards games, but my intention wasn't to discuss possibilities but rather the most efficient way to reach one's goals. I'm simply trying to help lower ranked players who are interesting in rising on the scoreboard. Getting a high rank isn't important to everyone, but for those ambitious new players out there who do want a shiny insignia, they would do well to heed my advice.

I certainly believe a skilled player can and will maintain 2k points no matter what settings he plays. However, like you alluded to, there comes a point when flat rate simply won't take you any higher because it is a more luck based game setting. A quick look at the scoreboard will tell you all you need to know about which games get people the most points. If you look at a top 100 player you will probably see a load of team games or freestyle games. If you look at the average striper you will see a hodgepodge of no cards, flat rate, oddball maps, and 1v1.

You can be the best no cards player on the site but still be ranked lower than the #25 escalating player.

Here's a list of the game styles, from top to bottom, that when mastered get you highest on the scoreboard:

1. freestyle
2. teams (with an emphasis on triples and quads)
3. 6-8 player escalating
4. who cares
5. 1v1 sequential

So escalating is the better style for a new player on the make because it is easier to win points at 6-8 man escalating than 6-8 man no cards? Escalating is more predictable?

I'm not sure you really mean that...

Your point about the average striper having a great variety of styles is well made, however I would counsel any player who wanted to maintain a good score to just play 1 or 2 styles and 1 or 2 maps. I would think whether they chose escalating or no cards wouldn't make much difference to their success rate as long as they just learned a couple of games on more than a superficial level.

My 10 months or so on the site has taught me that:

2500+ is exceptional for a no cards singles player.
1800 is line where you start to see truly good players (assuming they maintain it).
Those that play some teams and some some singles seq no cards seem to top out around 2,700 and that is where I am aiming for.

Would an 1800 escalating player be considered good by other escalating players when the top guys can make 4,000? That would be like saying a private in no cards is good to me (1,000- 2400).

Btw, I don't think the point-limit (which I think we agree is around 2700-3000) for no cards singles is about it being a more luck-based setting. It is much more about the fact that is can take a very long time for 8 v.good players to actually get a result in these settings. So it is better to have a mix of ranks. Yet that means the win percentage has to go up higher to keep making points. My singles win rate is usually around 50% yet a typical 8 man nets me 70-80 points and a sergeant takes 40+ when I am around 2450. I imagine my forward progress will start to get more difficult over the next few months.

There are numerous perfectly legitimate ways for anyone to achieve at least 2,000 points if they have some ability. I would say that singles no cards is one of the hardest ways to do it. I'm not sure you want to promote your settings by suggesting it is the easiest to make points at. Wouldn't that suggest that escalating singles is inferior to no cards?

[hoytdwow]

I worked so hard to get up to Sarge

[BigBallinStalin]

Try using the "win" button. I use it all the time and it's great.

It's all about timing though, you need to press Alt + F4 after your attack and it should appear on the far right.

hahaha, classic.

[Woodruff]

Oh why thank-you thank-you... I did get a little giggle from it thank-you. Thank-you for your approval oh great one.

Why do I get the feeling this thread is going to be locked shortly?

Why do you want so many threads locked?

Where did he say he wanted it locked? Work on your reading comprehension.

Do a quick search on his posts - we were discussing things over a couple of threads. Quit trolling, why bring that up, and if you are going to be rude, do it properly. Everyone else is trying to answer the OP, why are you being offensive?

Let me get this straight...you responded to him in THIS thread based on something he's said in ANOTHER thread? That makes absolutely no sense and DOES tend to make me think you're the one doing the trolling. I certainly don't know why you'd think I'M the one trolling, since I'm not the one making the off-topic statements.

And based specifically on your post tied in with the post that you were RESPONDING to directly (quoted and everything), you DO need to work on your reading comprehension because he has not said anything at all about wanting the thread to be locked.

[prismsaber]

So escalating is the better style for a new player on the make because it is easier to win points at 6-8 man escalating than 6-8 man no cards? Escalating is more predictable?

I'm not sure you really mean that...

Your point about the average striper having a great variety of styles is well made, however I would counsel any player who wanted to maintain a good score to just play 1 or 2 styles and 1 or 2 maps. I would think whether they chose escalating or no cards wouldn't make much difference to their success rate as long as they just learned a couple of games on more than a superficial level.

My 10 months or so on the site has taught me that:

2500+ is exceptional for a no cards singles player.
1800 is line where you start to see truly good players (assuming they maintain it).
Those that play some teams and some some singles seq no cards seem to top out around 2,700 and that is where I am aiming for.

Would an 1800 escalating player be considered good by other escalating players when the top guys can make 4,000? That would be like saying a private in no cards is good to me (1,000- 2400).

Btw, I don't think the point-limit (which I think we agree is around 2700-3000) for no cards singles is about it being a more luck-based setting. It is much more about the fact that is can take a very long time for 8 v.good players to actually get a result in these settings. So it is better to have a mix of ranks. Yet that means the win percentage has to go up higher to keep making points. My singles win rate is usually around 50% yet a typical 8 man nets me 70-80 points and a sergeant takes 40+ when I am around 2450. I imagine my forward progress will start to get more difficult over the next few months.

There are numerous perfectly legitimate ways for anyone to achieve at least 2,000 points if they have some ability. I would say that singles no cards is one of the hardest ways to do it. I'm not sure you want to promote your settings by suggesting it is the easiest to make points at. Wouldn't that suggest that escalating singles is inferior to no cards?

What I mean: game styles that allow the better player to win a larger majority of their games are less luck based than other styles. This is why escalating players are ranked higher than flat rate players. I admit to bias against no cards and flat rate because I detest build games. If every one played no card and flat rate games correctly, a large majority of them would invariably end up as build games. Said build games only end when some idiot suicides. Boring.

Is a 2k no cards player more impressive than a 2k escalating player? Absolutely.

Is an 1800 who plays only escalating impressive? Not at all.

At the end of the day the best escalating player will be ranked much higher than the best no cards player. That's what I'm getting at. That's where the points are.

[JoshyBoy]

Just to clear up something. In this thread I said I had the feeling this thread was going to be locked soon, not that I wanted this thread to be locked, it's quite amusing and a good read. I have stated in another thread that I wanted THAT thread locked. Wish I'd never said anything now

[KLOBBER]

At the end of the day the best escalating player will be ranked much higher than the best no cards player. That's what I'm getting at. That's where the points are.

That is incorrect.

Each time a player plays an escalating game, he is risking his points against between 1 and 7 other players who are also playing an escalating game. This means that a player who plays only escalating games with the same score as a player who plays only no cards has earned that score just as surely as the other guy earned his.

It all boils down to skill and intelligence, as the playing field is even for all players in each individual game.

Your brand of illogic seems to assume that an exclusive escalating game player can have exclusive no card players in his escalating games, which is impossible. You are correct that the benefits of escalating games are different from the benefits of the other types, but your error is in assuming that exclusive escalating players have a greater likelihood of cashing in on those benefits (independent of individual skill levels) than his opponents, and that is incorrect, because his opponents are, when it comes to games with him (the only games in which they can affect each other's scores), also exclusive escalating game players.

Each player in each escalating game has opportunities to reap the particular benefits of that game style, and the one who ends up reaping those benefits more often is the more skilled player. This principle also applies to the unique benefits offered by other game styles, by the way.

All other things being equal, the exact same number of points are available in no cards games as in escalating games.

[prismsaber]

At the end of the day the best escalating player will be ranked much higher than the best no cards player. That's what I'm getting at. That's where the points are.

That is incorrect.

Thank you for responding to me KLOBBER. It is an honor because I am somewhat of a fan of yours. That being said, you are the one who is incorrect and I can prove this in a very simple way. Go find me the highest ranking escalating player, then go find me the highest ranking no cards players. Compare scores. Which one has more points?

My conclusion that "at the end of the day the best escalating player will be ranked much higher than the best no cards player" stands. Your assertion "that is incorrect" is actually incorrect.

[KLOBBER]

Thank you for responding to me KLOBBER. It is an honor because I am somewhat of a fan of yours. That being said, you are the one who is incorrect and I can prove this in a very simple way. Go find me the highest ranking escalating player, then go find me the highest ranking no cards players. Compare scores. Which one has more points?

My conclusion that "at the end of the day the best escalating player will be ranked much higher than the best no cards player" stands. Your assertion "that is incorrect" is actually incorrect.

There are no such players, so your theory is still unproven. The fact that there are no such players is proven by the fact that you cannot find them.

Your theory is thoroughly disproven by dint of being 100% illogical and unscientific. My above post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I appreciate your kind words, but you are still wrong about this other point, sadly.

[prismsaber]

Thank you for responding to me KLOBBER. It is an honor because I am somewhat of a fan of yours. That being said, you are the one who is incorrect and I can prove this in a very simple way. Go find me the highest ranking escalating player, then go find me the highest ranking no cards players. Compare scores. Which one has more points?

My conclusion that "at the end of the day the best escalating player will be ranked much higher than the best no cards player" stands. Your assertion "that is incorrect" is actually incorrect.

There are no such players, so your theory is still unproven. The fact that there are no such players is proven by the fact that you cannot find them.

Your theory is thoroughly disproven by dint of being 100% illogical and unscientific. My above post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I appreciate your kind words, but you are still wrong about this other point, sadly.

Reading past all the typical, fun KLOBBER jargon, you reject my challenge and instead concede defeat. Too bad.

[KLOBBER]

Thank you for responding to me KLOBBER. It is an honor because I am somewhat of a fan of yours.

I appreciate your kind words, but you are still wrong about this other point...

Reading past all the typical, fun KLOBBER jargon, you reject my challenge and instead concede defeat. Too bad.

Sorry, but yes, I reject your supposed "challenge," as it is really no challenge at all, and finding those two mythical players you mention is your responsibility, not mine. Nobody could ever find them even if they tried, as they do not exist. The fact that I'm not wasting my time on your wild goose chase adds nothing at all to your point. The fact that YOU HAVE FAILED TO PRESENT THE NAMES of those mythical players proves that you are wrong, and also that they do not exist.

I love it when a thoroughly defeated individual like you imagines that I have "conceded," as it seems from your perspective the only way to save face, but it never works, sadly. I conceded nothing in this case -- I merely referred you to the post that trounced you into the ground, to which you offered no viable refutation.

[john9blue]

No Cards relies more on luck, and Escalating relies more on skill. So, a No Cards player is going to have a hard time achieving such a high score if he gets bad luck occasionally (which he should). The Escalating player will have a higher score even if he is not as smart as the No Cards player.

Also, yes, I'm sick of being teamed too.

[KLOBBER]

No Cards relies more on luck, and Escalating relies more on skill. So, a No Cards player is going to have a hard time achieving such a high score if he gets bad luck occasionally (which he should). The Escalating player will have a higher score even if he is not as smart as the No Cards player.

Also, yes, I'm sick of being teamed too.

That is incorrect.

First of all, there is no proof at all that one game style relies on "luck" more than any other.

Secondly, even if it did, then in that case, each player would be playing against players subject to the same "luck" as he, and so it would even out in all cases.

Thirdly, you have offered no viable reason for your arbitrary, illogical, and thoroughly unscientific theory that an escalating player would have a higher score even if he's not as "smart" as a no cards player. Where are the data? Don't bother answering, as we all damn well know that there are no data in support of your ridiculous theory. You have merely posted the statement, without posting any supporting evidence, and the conclusion is that it is a false statement.

The unscientific and illogical thinking of so many members on this site is a mixed blessing for me. It's almost painful to see how deep into illogic and unscientific nonsense some minds are capable of dwelling, but on the positive side, I'm very happy to play games with such people as my opponents, as such error can only transfer into their games as bad moves.

BTW, Prismsaber, please feel free to enter into any and all of my games. I would love to play a few games with you and take your points. Dare you make the attempt?

[MoB Deadly]

Sure, points CAN be made from flat rate and no cards games, but my intention wasn't to discuss possibilities but rather the most efficient way to reach one's goals. I'm simply trying to help lower ranked players who are interesting in rising on the scoreboard. Getting a high rank isn't important to everyone, but for those ambitious new players out there who do want a shiny insignia, they would do well to heed my advice.

I certainly believe a skilled player can and will maintain 2k points no matter what settings he plays. However, like you alluded to, there comes a point when flat rate simply won't take you any higher because it is a more luck based game setting. A quick look at the scoreboard will tell you all you need to know about which games get people the most points. If you look at a top 100 player you will probably see a load of team games or freestyle games. If you look at the average striper you will see a hodgepodge of no cards, flat rate, oddball maps, and 1v1.

You can be the best no cards player on the site but still be ranked lower than the #25 escalating player.

Here's a list of the game styles, from top to bottom, that when mastered get you highest on the scoreboard:

1. freestyle
2. teams (with an emphasis on triples and quads)
3. 6-8 player escalating
4. who cares
5. 1v1 sequential

I totally agree with THIS post of primsaber's, which is why I don't care about my rank anymore. I primarily play 1v1 sequential no spoils, unlimited reinforcements where the game is often decided by going first, drop, and good/bad dice. I have yet to attempt to try freestyle, and I don't know anyone to play team games with. And I used to hate escalating, but it is starting to grow on me now.

I know what #4 is.... Mastering a map where the average user cannot comprehend, such as waterloo or drug war or something. Play small or big games on that and rake in the points.

I do think a player who plays flat or no spoils, can compete in points with the escalating players, if they have a great team to play with

[john9blue]

each player would be playing against players subject to the same "luck" as he, and so it would even out in all cases.

In an escalating game, you have to deduce when to cash and who to go after. No Cards mostly relies on alliances and waiting for others to attack, which turns against you sometimes. If you get bad dice, there are no cards to save you.

You're right though, in No Cards each player has the same luck, so it evens out, and it is really hard to get a high score. THAT is why it is easier to get a high score playing escalating.

Although I wouldn't expect you to know the first thing about anything other than Standard Sequential Escalating Unlimited Foggy. You aren't exactly, shall we say, a jack of all trades.

[MoB Deadly]

No Cards relies more on luck, and Escalating relies more on skill. So, a No Cards player is going to have a hard time achieving such a high score if he gets bad luck occasionally (which he should). The Escalating player will have a higher score even if he is not as smart as the No Cards player.

Also, yes, I'm sick of being teamed too.

That is incorrect.

First of all, there is no proof at all that one game style relies on "luck" more than any other.

Secondly, even if it did, then in that case, each player would be playing against players subject to the same "luck" as he, and so it would even out in all cases.

I agree with what KOBBLER is saying here. I think what john9blue needs to say is that, less skilled players are more likely to make bad decisions in escalating games than in no cards games; therefore giving a skilled player a better chance to win. Both game types involve the same luck, but a skilled player can gain more profit from escalating than no cards

*fastposted*

[Falkomagno]

I just realiced what prismsaber said.

Of course, that according to the concepts given by prismsaber, a scalating games are more profitable than no cards or flat games. Since he has 3971 points, that's a good criteria to know if he know was he's talking about. , at least that's enough for me.

Changsta did good apretiations, but I think that he kept in which settings are better, not in points earn, but better itself. And that's a likes discussion, and can vary for everyone. As usuall, klobber its so much "blablabla...you are incorrect...blah blah blah" his opinion are very hard to be taken serious. As conclusion, and reading all of these, can I conclude:

1. Escalating is more profitable that flat and no cards games.
2. The number of players, mayor issue. The higher scoreboard player play a lot of 8-6 games. And many of them have a wining percentage lower than
40%. So, play those setting is profitable.
3. Good Partners. Many points earnesd uin team matches...so, choose a good partner can be the way of climb the scoreboard