Sick of it. Absolutly sick of being teamed.

[KLOBBER]

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

Exactly.

[KLOBBER]

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

That is totally illogical. You admit that it evens out, and yet your next statement completely overlooks the admitted act that it evens out.

If it evens out, that means that each player is reduced to relying on his skill, not "luck," just as in escalating games.

Such stupor must be crippling in the games, which would explain your low rank.

[john9blue]

That is totally illogical. You admit that it evens out, and yet your next statement completely overlooks the admitted act that it evens out.

If it evens out, that means that each player is reduced to relying on his skill, not "luck," just as in escalating games.

Such stupor must be crippling in the games, which would explain your low rank.

You're trolling at this point. There are other factors than the luck "evening out" involved. The fact that you only play escalating means that you are aware of that fact.

And my "low rank" is only 200 points less than yours, and I was a major a few weeks ago, and I play more game styles than you. Your high score was gained through unfair tactics. Everybody knows that you are a mediocre player at best. What are you trying to prove?

[MoB Deadly]

That is totally illogical. You admit that it evens out, and yet your next statement completely overlooks the admitted act that it evens out.

If it evens out, that means that each player is reduced to relying on his skill, not "luck," just as in escalating games.

Such stupor must be crippling in the games, which would explain your low rank.

You're trolling at this point. There are other factors than the luck "evening out" involved. The fact that you only play escalating means that you are aware of that fact.

And my "low rank" is only 200 points less than yours, and I was a major a few weeks ago, and I play more game styles than you. Your high score was gained through unfair tactics. Everybody knows that you are a mediocre player at best. What are you trying to prove?

Maybe he likes escalating? Why do you care what game types he plays? You play the game types you enjoy, he plays the ones he enjoys....

[john9blue]

Maybe he likes escalating? Why do you care what game types he plays? You play the game types you enjoy, he plays the ones he enjoys....

I don't care unless he starts bashing me for my rank, even after I've proved that the style he plays exclusively makes it easier to get a high score. He starts trolling and insulting, I respond in kind.

[KLOBBER]

Maybe he likes escalating? Why do you care what game types he plays? You play the game types you enjoy, he plays the ones he enjoys....

I don't care unless he starts bashing me for my rank, even after I've proved that the style he plays exclusively makes it easier to get a high score. He starts trolling and insulting, I respond in kind.

You proved nothing of the sort.

[obliterationX]

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

That is totally illogical. You admit that it evens out, and yet your next statement completely overlooks the admitted act that it evens out.

If it evens out, that means that each player is reduced to relying on his skill, not "luck," just as in escalating games.

Such stupor must be crippling in the games, which would explain your low rank.

Hey KLOBBER, weren't you down to Corporal when farming was banned?

[KLOBBER]

That is totally illogical. You admit that it evens out, and yet your next statement completely overlooks the admitted act that it evens out.

If it evens out, that means that each player is reduced to relying on his skill, not "luck," just as in escalating games.

Such stupor must be crippling in the games, which would explain your low rank.

Your high score was gained through unfair tactics.

Maybe he likes escalating? Why do you care what game types he plays? You play the game types you enjoy, he plays the ones he enjoys....

If I got my higher rank through unfair tactics, then report me. Of course you would have to be more specific for a report, and since I never have employed any unfair tactics, specificity is not possible for you, and neither is reporting me. In any case, your rank is lower than mine. If I were a mediocre player, then that would make you less than mediocre. My highest scoreboard position was number 15 (fifteen) out of more than 20,000 players. What was your highest? Number 17,000?

The reason I prefer escalating is because it doesn't turn into an endless stacking exercise, which, to me, is no game at all.

The fact is that it takes at least as much skill to consistently win escalating games as it does to win no card games, because each player is subjected to the same exact influences within each respective game. It boils down to skill and intelligence being the only real mitigating factors, and your unscientific and illogical theories are based on ignorance of reality mixed with deep misunderstanding of how the points system works, along with a hearty dose of wishful thinking that there is some reason for your low rank other than your lack of skills at the game.

Also, your math skills are lacking. Since when is 2141 - 1913 equal to 200?

[Timminz]

please stop feeding the troll.

Not this troll. He's hilarious. It's like watching people argue with a brick.

[pimpdave]

please stop feeding the troll.

Not this troll. He's hilarious. It's like watching people argue with a brick.

POST OF THE MONTH

[pimpdave]

Maybe he likes escalating? Why do you care what game types he plays? You play the game types you enjoy, he plays the ones he enjoys....

I don't care unless he starts bashing me for my rank, even after I've proved that the style he plays exclusively makes it easier to get a high score. He starts trolling and insulting, I respond in kind.

You proved nothing of the sort.

One needs look no further than your medals to substantiate John's claims.

[KLOBBER]

I believe KLOBBER was referring to this:

I've proved that the style he plays exclusively makes it easier to get a high score.

If that were true, then everybody would play that style exclusively, which would also even out the playing field, which would return us to the fact that scores and ranks are based on skills.

Everyone I play plays me on the same settings that I use -- there is no escaping this fact. If it hypothetically makes it easier for me to win, then it would also make it easier for them to win, again evening out the playing field. It is the same for every player, and the same for every setting preference.

I'm sorry, but your theory is just plain stupid.

I could just as easily claim that the settings you play on make it easier for you to get more points without being as smart as your opponents, but that would be just as stupid, since you are also playing other players who must necessarily be on the same settings as you. That is how the site works.

Do you ACTUALLY think that one guy can be in an escalating game with another guy whose settings for that game are no cards??? That would be the only way that your ridiculous theory would possibly hold any water.

I got news for you, sunshine, it is not possible to play that way, so you are just plain wrong about this.

[john9blue]

Okay lol, I'll stop "feeding the troll". One more thing though:

If that were true, then everybody would play that style exclusively, which would also even out the playing field, which would return us to the fact that scores and ranks are based on skills.

Some of us don't play for score. Some of us play for fun.

[Falkomagno]

lol you are actually listening to Klobber? He's the biggest joke on these forums with his high and mighty tone.

It's not worth the 2 mins it takes to respond, you could make better use of that time, like taking a dump.

Seriously, for the sake of the rest us, please stop feeding the troll.

Exactly...just ignore the "blablablahhhh"

[KLOBBER]

Okay lol, I'll stop "feeding the troll". One more thing though:

If that were true, then everybody would play that style exclusively, which would also even out the playing field, which would return us to the fact that scores and ranks are based on skills.

Some of us don't play for score. Some of us play for fun.

Some play for both.

[jiminski]

Okay lol, I'll stop "feeding the troll". One more thing though:

If that were true, then everybody would play that style exclusively, which would also even out the playing field, which would return us to the fact that scores and ranks are based on skills.

Some of us don't play for score. Some of us play for fun.

Some play for both.

hehehe there is a subtle difference; the love of money does not make a man a romantic

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Belongs in FW

If only we had a....

Mmmmmmmmm, Flame Wars, mmmmmmm

[xelabale]

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.

The only difference between this immature spat and the immature spats in FW is the expletive count. EVERYTHING else is the same. FFS (is shorthand swearing?)

[KLOBBER]

That's not true. Another difference is that we're not attacking each other personally. We are disagreeing each other's ideas, which is a very different thing.

In fact, Prism actually complimented me at one point. He seems like a nice person, I just don't agree with his idea.

[Selucid Empire]

Isn't diplomacy just a big part of the game? This sounds like... like:

A hockey player being sick of being checked into the boards.
A poker player sick of getting a pair of Jacks.
A soccer player sick of having to kick the ball.

... just my 2 cents

[prismsaber]

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.

Finally somebody gets it.

On another note...KLOBBER, I am surprised that someone as intelligent as you puts so much effort and energy into arguably the most kiddy map on the site; Circus Maximus. Imagine the score you could reach if you put as much effort into learning a lucrative game style as you do trolling and playing little league games. When I have more free time maybe I'll even mentor you in team games if you ask nicely!

[Mr Changsha]

KLOBBER derailed this discussion quite wonderfully and amusingly but for the life of me I can't quite work out his point. So maybe he could answer my question:

Would you rate a 2,000 ( effectively exclusively) escalating player higher or lower than a 2,000 (effectively exclusively) no cards player assuming they only played 6-8 man seq. singles games?

This argument started because I suggested that in the no cards singles world (of which I am an active part) a captain is considered to be a very solid player indeed. Railfrog would be an example of the hard to beat very respected captain. Yet prismsaber was sure that a captain in the escalating world is really not very much of anything. I would tend to agree with him.

However, I think we differ as to the reason. I would suggest that there are more 'free points' in the escalating world, more bread and butter games as King_H pointed out a while back. No cards games are pretty much always a struggle in the 8 man format. The idea that no cards is more 'luck-based' I would have to disagree with. In my view, it is the game style least dependent on luck. There are no cards (of course), attacks are rarely dice-dependent (you average 40 on 25 no cards attack is certainly less stressful than a 10 on 8 for the cards in escalating)and in the end position will win through over bad dice everytime at no cards singles as no one can lay huge numbers of troops to immediately change the position.

However, I quite accept that for many players no cards singles is a horrific format. Incredibly long games, no movement, wait for someone to make a mistake. Yet for those of us who specialise in it I promise you there is a lot more to it than that. Hence the high scores/low game numbers of players like myself scholtz or medefe to name a notable few. Are we just very, very lucky?

The question therefore is whether there are more high ranked singles escalating players (and you can certainly say some players specialise in a certain style KLOBBER just as we can say you specialise in deadbeat waterloo games we can say I specialise in no cards singles and team games) than high ranked singles no cards players because more good players play escalating - a possibility - or because it is easier to make points at escalating, in which case it would suggest that the no cards players are better at equivalent ranks.

[Woodruff]

Nah, just coz you're using false politeness doesn't stop you being a cunt.

I finally found something I agree with xelabale about. You are precisely correct in stating that false politeness is NOT courtesy.

[Woodruff]

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.

Finally somebody gets it.

On another note...KLOBBER, I am surprised that someone as intelligent as you puts so much effort and energy into arguably the most kiddy map on the site; Circus Maximus. Imagine the score you could reach if you put as much effort into learning a lucrative game style as you do trolling and playing little league games. When I have more free time maybe I'll even mentor you in team games if you ask nicely!

I happen to personally enjoy Circus Maximus a GREAT deal. Why? Because I don't have to worry about the stupid damn drops deciding the game. Circus Maximus is one of the few maps I feel that way about.

[KLOBBER]

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.

Finally somebody gets it.

On another note...KLOBBER, I am surprised that someone as intelligent as you puts so much effort and energy into arguably the most kiddy map on the site; Circus Maximus. Imagine the score you could reach if you put as much effort into learning a lucrative game style as you do trolling and playing little league games. When I have more free time maybe I'll even mentor you in team games if you ask nicely!

I happen to personally enjoy Circus Maximus a GREAT deal. Why? Because I don't have to worry about the stupid damn drops deciding the game. Circus Maximus is one of the few maps I feel that way about.

Same here. Overcoming the bad drop problem brings it closer to skill and intelligence as the deciding factors, so I definitely prefer it that way.