Sick of it. Absolutly sick of being teamed.

[KLOBBER]

If there were actually something like "free points" in the "escalating world," (two terms arbitrarily invented by Changsha), then each and every player who engages any exclusive escalating player would be presented with the exact same opportunity to use whatever skill and intelligence he has to get such "free" points as the exclusive escalating players with whom he plays, and so, again, we return to the irrefutable fact that the playing field is even in escalating games. An even playing field gives the advantage to the player with greater skill and intelligence.

Skill is skill, and intelligence is intelligence, and as the settings are necessarily the same for each player within each respective game, and the playing field is therefore necessarily even within each game, then the notion that gaining points consistently on one setting takes more or less skill or intelligence than on another setting is completely unscientific, is completely illogical, is completely stupid, and is is complete hogwash.

Such ridiculous ideas are dreamed up by inferior minds with no grasp of how the points system actually works.

It is extremely foolish to overlook the fact that any player who plays escalating will necessarily be facing opponents with the EXACT SAME SETTING: escalating. Therefore, all of his opponents will necessarily encounter the exact same opportunities and pitfalls that he does, in regards to gaining or losing points within that game. The same even playing field principle applies to the opportunities and pitfalls unique to no cards games and flat rate games, respectively.

I'm beginning to think that two individuals on this thread actually believe that it's possible for one guy in a game to have an escalating setting while another guy in the same game has a no cards setting. If you two actually believe that, then I have to let you know that the site most certainly does not allow that to happen. The site definitely ensures that the playing field is even in each and every game, no matter the settings, by virtue of each player within each game necessarily playing on the exact same settings, so take care not to make that extremely unintelligent error.

That error, if it were possible, would be the only saving grace for your ridiculous theory, the only way that it could possibly hold any water, which it certainly does not.

[King_Herpes]

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

Nice attempt at diverting our attention away from the obtrusive smut. She's clearly giving him a footjob...

*Also, back on topic...It doesn't seem like she minds being teamed on whatsoever. This adheres to my original statement.

[Mr Changsha]

Skill is skill, and intelligence is intelligence, and as the settings are necessarily the same for each player within each respective game, and the playing field is therefore necessarily even within each game, then the notion that gaining points consistently on one setting takes more or less skill or intelligence than on another setting is completely unscientific, is completely illogical, is completely stupid, and is is complete hogwash.

But how about if we consider chess and that other game of the titans, snap! Skill may be skill and intelligence may be intelligence, but one offers far more opportunity to exhibit the skill than the other. Therefore, while escalating and no cards may be much more similar than chess and snap!, they are surely still sufficiently different to at least question whether one form offers more opportunity to use innate intelligence than the other.

[KLOBBER]

Skill is skill, and intelligence is intelligence, and as the settings are necessarily the same for each player within each respective game, and the playing field is therefore necessarily even within each game, then the notion that gaining points consistently on one setting takes more or less skill or intelligence than on another setting is completely unscientific, is completely illogical, is completely stupid, and is is complete hogwash.

But how about if we consider chess and that other game of the titans, snap! Skill may be skill and intelligence may be intelligence, but one offers far more opportunity to exhibit the skill than the other. Therefore, while escalating and no cards may be much more similar than chess and snap!, they are surely still sufficiently different to at least question whether one form offers more opportunity to use innate intelligence than the other.

That is all definitely true.

[Mr Changsha]

Skill is skill, and intelligence is intelligence, and as the settings are necessarily the same for each player within each respective game, and the playing field is therefore necessarily even within each game, then the notion that gaining points consistently on one setting takes more or less skill or intelligence than on another setting is completely unscientific, is completely illogical, is completely stupid, and is is complete hogwash.

But how about if we consider chess and that other game of the titans, snap! Skill may be skill and intelligence may be intelligence, but one offers far more opportunity to exhibit the skill than the other. Therefore, while escalating and no cards may be much more similar than chess and snap!, they are surely still sufficiently different to at least question whether one form offers more opportunity to use innate intelligence than the other.

That is all definitely true.

So not 'completely unscientific, illogical, stupid and hogwash' then?

[KLOBBER]

Skill is skill, and intelligence is intelligence, and as the settings are necessarily the same for each player within each respective game, and the playing field is therefore necessarily even within each game, then the notion that gaining points consistently on one setting takes more or less skill or intelligence than on another setting is completely unscientific, is completely illogical, is completely stupid, and is is complete hogwash.

But how about if we consider chess and that other game of the titans, snap! Skill may be skill and intelligence may be intelligence, but one offers far more opportunity to exhibit the skill than the other. Therefore, while escalating and no cards may be much more similar than chess and snap!, they are surely still sufficiently different to at least question whether one form offers more opportunity to use innate intelligence than the other.

That is all definitely true.

So not 'completely unscientific, illogical, stupid and hogwash' then?

The previous post was. Conversely, this last one was all true.

You do realize that the two posts said different things, right?

[Mr Changsha]

Skill is skill, and intelligence is intelligence, and as the settings are necessarily the same for each player within each respective game, and the playing field is therefore necessarily even within each game, then the notion that gaining points consistently on one setting takes more or less skill or intelligence than on another setting is completely unscientific, is completely illogical, is completely stupid, and is is complete hogwash.

But how about if we consider chess and that other game of the titans, snap! Skill may be skill and intelligence may be intelligence, but one offers far more opportunity to exhibit the skill than the other. Therefore, while escalating and no cards may be much more similar than chess and snap!, they are surely still sufficiently different to at least question whether one form offers more opportunity to use innate intelligence than the other.

That is all definitely true.

So not 'completely unscientific, illogical, stupid and hogwash' then?

The previous post was. Conversely, this last one was all true.

I know exactly what I have been writing about: Whether it is easier to become a captain at no cards/flat rate or escalating. I was speculating as to whether it is in fact easier to do this on escalating. You then said that I was writing crap because of your 'even playing field' principle. I then said that in fact no KLOBBER you are wrong, because the games are different, therefore one might reward intelligence more than the other, which would then suggest that it is easier to win on escalating as one's intelligence can shine more.

The point is that you derided our speculating on the issue.

You were wrong to do that.

But please carry on...

You do realize that the two posts said different things, right?

[KLOBBER]

...one might reward intelligence more than the other, which would then suggest that it is easier to win on escalating as one's intelligence can shine more....

You then said that I was writing crap....

Dude, calm down.

Actually, I posted something to the same effect as your above quote, even before you began posting on this subject. That is not what you said earlier, though. What you said earlier WAS unscientific, stupid, illogical hogwash, but what you said above is true.

I'm agreeing with you that one setting could possibly reward skill and intelligence to a higher degree than the other.

At least, I'm TRYING to agree with you; is that even going to be possible?

Also, I never said "crap," you brought that word into the conversation independently.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

...one might reward intelligence more than the other, which would then suggest that it is easier to win on escalating as one's intelligence can shine more.

Dude, calm down.

Actually, I posted something to the same effect as your above quote, even before you began posting on this subject. That is not what you said earlier, though. What you said earlier WAS unscientific, stupid, illogical hogwash, but what you said above is true.

I'm agreeing with you that one setting could possibly reward skill and intelligence to a higher degree than the other.

At least, I'm TRYING to agree with you; is that even going to be possible?

Also, I never said "crap," you brought that word into the conversation independently.

Who said CRAP?!?! Oh my, call the "thought police", I think we got FLAMES coming out of someone's ass!

[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.

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.

And maybe that explain those huge 900 points

[Falkomagno]

....blah blah blah.... the notion that gaining points consistently on one setting takes more or less skill or intelligence than on another setting is completely unscientific, is completely illogical, is completely stupid, and is is complete hogwash.blah blah blah......

(So FW)


Do you ever heard about map specialization??'maybe you hear some about hahaha, because you consider yourself as a (hahaha...almost I can not write this hahaha) CRIMINAL ON CIRCUS MAXIMUS, extremely proficient and skilled on that map....so you are completely unscientific, completely illogical, completely stupid, and complete hogwash right?. even more...that map that you choose to specializate, it's one of the most simple in all the site. No bonus, No regions.

If you dare, I challenge you at Battle of Iraq, and determines who is most skilled (at least in that map)

[KLOBBER]

...almost I can not write....

"Almost?"

Buddy, you can not write, period!

[Timminz]

...almost I can not write....

"Almost?"

Buddy, you can not write, period!

I bet his opinion of your Spanish would be similar.

[KLOBBER]

...almost I can not write....

"Almost?"

Buddy, you can not write, period!

I bet his opinion of your Spanish would be similar.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not writing in Spanish, am I?

[Beckytheblondie]

So i havent read this thread and cannot contribute much. But for some reason, whenever it see it on the forum list, I think of a porn star who finally cracked under the pressure of performing constant threesomes, when in here heart she only loved the 1 on 1 action

[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.

And maybe that explain those huge 900 points

I'd be more than happy to take your points away from you on any map you'd like, falko. <evil smile> My points are low because I play a massive number of concurrent games across almost all of the different maps and on many different settings (thanks to tournaments). Fortunately, as I've stated on many an occasion, I really don't care at all about my points, as I'm here for fun.

[john9blue]

Sergeant is still a shit rank where they are trash at reading the board. Majors can hardly read the board at a minimally decent level, although thought process actually shows.

You were a sergeant at one point. Were you trash at reading the board?

A sergeant is the equivalent of throwing me on a specific gimmick map and expecting me to understand all the intricacies of it. In terms of strategy, sergeant in my eyes is bottom of the barrel. Hardly differentiable to a cook.

Good day.

Sergeants have to work roughly twice as hard to get points as cooks do. There's definitely a difference...

[KLOBBER]

So i havent read this thread and cannot contribute much. But for some reason, whenever it see it on the forum list, I think of a porn star who finally cracked under the pressure of performing constant threesomes, when in here heart she only loved the 1 on 1 action

LOL! LOL! LOL!

I wasn't going to say anything, but every time I read the title of this thread, I picture a young dude, on his first day in the prison system, mumbling phrase to a guard as he slowly waddles out of the shower area, only to be met by a chorus of hilarious laughter. And somehow, the bad spelling makes it even funnier! LOL!

[Mr Changsha]

Sergeant is still a shit rank where they are trash at reading the board. Majors can hardly read the board at a minimally decent level, although thought process actually shows.

You were a sergeant at one point. Were you trash at reading the board?

A sergeant is the equivalent of throwing me on a specific gimmick map and expecting me to understand all the intricacies of it. In terms of strategy, sergeant in my eyes is bottom of the barrel. Hardly differentiable to a cook.

Good day.

Sergeants have to work roughly twice as hard to get points as cooks do. There's definitely a difference...

No, John9blue. Fabled emerged from his mother's womb a fully formed colonel, went up to brig. and then regressed back to his childhood and became a colonel again.

But yes, everyone else would remember that they were a striper once (not for long...arf arf) and might also remember that there are numerous reasons why a player might be a striper other than ability at the game.

But we cannot expect super men to exist on the same plane as us mere mortals...

[jnd94]

I believe what Fabled is trying to say is that to stay at sarg or below, your strategic knowledge must be limited. Not non-existent, but limited.

[Timminz]

...almost I can not write....

"Almost?"
Buddy, you can not write, period!

I bet his opinion of your Spanish would be similar.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not writing in Spanish, am I?

That's very astute of you. Perhaps that is why I used the words, "I bet", and "would be".

[Mr Changsha]

I believe what Fabled is trying to say is that to stay at sarg or below, your strategic knowledge must be limited. Not non-existent, but limited.

Ah, but isn't that the point? My experience has been of the steady sergeant with 1,000 games. He might not be the most daring of players, but be over-confident and he'll clean your pipes for you.

While we can only write in generalities I think we can often say that high score = narrow game selection rather than high score = superior ability. Of course there are many exceptions to the rule, but it holds in many, many cases. Someone was criticising woodruff for being a private after 1,000 games in another thread and he retorted by saying he had 100 games on a wide variety of maps and styles. I can see why he's a private then, as I wouldn't want to set myself the challenge of playing that many varieties of the game and staying over 2,000 points. I imagine I'd drop a great deal.

[Woodruff]

I believe what Fabled is trying to say is that to stay at sarg or below, your strategic knowledge must be limited. Not non-existent, but limited.

I would venture that the very higher ranks are generally (I'm sure there are exceptions) the ones who "limit their game", in one fashion or another.

[KLOBBER]

...almost I can not write....

"Almost?"
Buddy, you can not write, period!

I bet his opinion of your Spanish would be similar.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not writing in Spanish, am I?

That's very astute of you. Perhaps that is why I used the words, "I bet", and "would be".

To quote Judge Judy's appropriately dismissive catch phrase, "Shoulda woulda coulda."

[Artimis]

While we can only write in generalities I think we can often say that high score = narrow game selection rather than high score = superior ability. Of course there are many exceptions to the rule, but it holds in many, many cases. Someone was criticising woodruff for being a private after 1,000 games in another thread and he retorted by saying he had 100 games on a wide variety of maps and styles. I can see why he's a private then, as I wouldn't want to set myself the challenge of playing that many varieties of the game and staying over 2,000 points. I imagine I'd drop a great deal.

I can attest to that. I played upwards of 110+ games on various maps with various settings and my rank was all over the place, bouncing between Private and Lieutenant. These days I play about 40-60 games active at a time and my rank varies a little bit above and below Lieutenant. If I was to play even fewer game my rank would probably rise some more, but then I wouldn't have as much fun.