Conquer Club

Iron Butterfly wrote:If it where about skill folks would not need to use doubles and triples games to pad their games in fear of losing points.

Until I see someone rise to the top 10, heck lets make it 100 by playing solo I beleive the game is about playing what you are familiar with and hoping you have good dice.

I have been in the top 100, and the majority of my points came from solo games. Lately I am into teamgames because those are the last medals i need to make...

squishyg wrote:I was admiring the trophy chests of some players and I noticed that many low ranked players have a respectable amount of medals, myself included. Which made me ask myself if I considered myself a good player.

I concluded that I was not a good player, but rather an experienced one. I don't think I have any remarkable talent or skill at this game, I simply enjoy it and know basic gameplay.

So how about you? Are you a skilled player or simply an experienced one?

Rank shows your overall rank on ALL games you have ever played. Medals show the number of wins.

Everyone will win games now and then by "pure chance" or almost chance. In that way, they may represent time, not real skill.

That said, those who get the very highest ranks -- conquerer, etc. Tend to "specialize" in some way... play just a few maps, particular game types, etc. (the combination varies) These people may be very good at those particular games, but never have even tried other maps or game play styles.

Personally, I am like many people. I am pretty good at a couple of maps, but like to play maps and game settings at which I am not so good. I also play mostly 1 vs 1, so am more subject to dice/spoils whims than if I were playing more multiple-player maps. I have been rated among Blitz's top ten map rank on one map, but rarely stay even a Lieutenant for long. My "win rate" stays somewhere in the 40's.

Then you have someone like Robinette, who consistantly stays relatively high ranked, has a win rate that seems pretty low (in the 30's last time I noted it), because she mostly plays larger (6, then 8 player) games.

I am skilled in speed fs, and am getting experienced at team games thanks to clan wars.

-rd

Experience helps in the long run.

I have neither

I say there has to be some skill involved because of the existence of the SoC. If experience was all that was needed to become good, then cooks should just play lots of classic and become good at it. Instead, there are certain skills one uses, and that's what the SoC teaches them.

<---- cook.

AndyDufresne wrote:I don't think I'm skilled in game play. In that aspect of CC, I'm probably just experienced. But for the rest of CC's facets, maybe I'm semi-skilled!?


--Andy

Assuming you're not including your jokes, you are absolutely beyond semi-skilled.

AAFitz wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I don't think I'm skilled in game play. In that aspect of CC, I'm probably just experienced. But for the rest of CC's facets, maybe I'm semi-skilled!?


--Andy

Assuming you're not including your jokes, you are absolutely beyond semi-skilled.

Maybe---but I'm not very experienced in Clans or Tournaments, I just know how they work!

I think, however, I am making attempts toward becoming more 'skilled' in game play...and this I like!


--Andy

PLAYER57832 wrote: Then you have someone like Robinette, who consistently stays relatively high ranked, has a win rate that seems pretty low (in the 30's last time I noted it), because she mostly plays larger (6, then 8 player) games.

ummm... it's only 28% actually...



Great thread bytheway...

I have experience in honing my skills, which is why I'm a cook.

Commander62890 wrote:

Rodion wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:I want to tap on the medals part of the conversation. I'll admit that I collect medals, it gives me something to do on this site. Obviously they don't require skill, you could have a below average win % and still get a medal. However, they ofc do show experience as the OP said, so they can be useful for certain things.

For example, a guy asked to be considered for tsm. The had a decent score, but then I saw that he had no team medals, not even bronze. That means less than 20 ud's for each setting, dubs, trips and quads. So I looked closer and seen he hadn't played any. So medals can give you a quick snapshot of someone's experience, but as other posters have said, that doesn't tell you if they are good, just that they've played.

Did you snub the guy?

When I joined KORT, I had:

dubs - bronze medal
triples - no medal
quads - never played a quads game before

WOW!

You were quite the catch, Rodion! KoRT snagged you at a time when you had hardly played trips or quads? Impressive!

Rodion wrote:

Iron Butterfly wrote:If it where about skill folks would not need to use doubles and triples games to pad their games in fear of losing points.

Until I see someone rise to the top 10, heck lets make it 100 by playing solo I beleive the game is about playing what you are familiar with and hoping you have good dice.

7 Kiron 4288 357 168 (47%) General 7 4.6 Canada
10 xiangwang 4045 120 61 (51%) Colonel 4 4.6 Canada
14 dvlajko 3924 631 204 (32%) General 11 4.9 Serbia
23 Kole 3641 153 52 (34%) Brigadier 3 4.8 Serbia

Yeah, that's bullshit. Iron Butterfly has no idea what he's talking about.

I guess we all play in our own personal alternate realities here at CC. I stand corrected. Amazing how folks can just walk on and play the game like a pro with no prior experience. Just walk on and start winning at freestyle. Who woulda thought.

Iron Butterfly wrote:
I guess we all play in our own personal alternate realities here at CC. I stand corrected. Amazing how folks can just walk on and play the game like a pro with no prior experience. Just walk on and start winning at freestyle. Who woulda thought.

There have been plenty that have risen to the top, some of whom never played teams or certainly as a large percentage of their score, and simply played multi-player escalating sequential standard games as well.

Your experience with skill in this case does seem to be somewhat limited.

Looks like its cook status for me. Most of the experience I have is from playing real games of Risk with friends, in which case I use a lot of manipulation to succeed. On cc I can't really be as convincing in the game chat.

lets say for arguments sake someone creates an alternate account and then use their trial and error experience, knowlege of map layout and the fact that they can move up the ranks fairly quickly against clueless noobs and lower ranked. Granted at some point these folks will be plying folks of equal rank BUT not before they have gotten a nice win percentage.

Is that skill or experience? Think it ever happens?

Iron Butterfly wrote:lets say for arguments sake someone creates an alternate account and then use their trial and error experience, knowlege of map layout and the fact that they can move up the ranks fairly quickly against clueless noobs and lower ranked. Granted at some point these folks will be plying folks of equal rank BUT not before they have gotten a nice win percentage.

Is that skill or experience? Think it ever happens?

It may happen, but they will be busted in the end. I fail to see the relavance though, unless you mean to say that these above mentioned players are all multi's

I did not imply ALL were multis.

Iron Butterfly wrote:I did not imply ALL were multis.

Shall we talk about the elephant in the living room or make beleive it doesn't exhist?

Hey I totally agree that its likely someone who does well on day one is more likely to be a multi... and that it is easyer to get into the top 100 on teamgames then on singles, basicly because e.g. quads is a very different and more difficult type of game then 1vs1, so you tend to be able to win more...

still with regards to the above discussion it was said that it is possible, just hard(er) to get high rank on single games

I have no skill at all, which is why I have always gone for medals

I was wrong.

I based that info on my own experience from my small corner of the CC world. I play very casually and have never vested the time needed. I first started plying at CC completly cluless in many respects. It took alot of trial and error to learn the ropes. My playing style is such that I play public games. Most of my games tend to be with low ranked inexperienced folk, who at times play extremely erratic and can be down right suicidal.

For the most part I hold cap and major. I recognize how hard it is to raise to a higher rank after that AND to maintain it. In the past I have seen how other folks obtain it. There comes a point where people find it more important to protect their rank so they play in their closed societies, playing against other like minded individuals.

Call me a good player or bad player it doesnt matter. Does it require experience or skill to rise to the top? Its a combination of many things. I do have enough experience at CC to recognize people who game the system and have seen the ways it has been done.

I could easily form a new account at a different computer and reach capt/major in 50 games or less and no one would be the wiser.

I think you could easily get to major within 50 games and your current knowledge. Therefore set your sights a bit higher, can you become a general if you were to multi?

I know this is the case for some members who have gotten foed so now don’t have the chance to seriously take advantage of certain players with high points, but overall? I do not have the skill to get to a singles general, solely based on the fact that I don’t play freestyle (where this is still possible) and the fact that my win percentage is okay, but not good enough to make up the points when I loose.

There is a cap I beleive on how fast you can rise. I beleive this problem was recognized and this was the solution. If a freemium player can only play 4 games at a time it just takes a bit longer.

where's the "Talent" option?

Many have skill in gaining experience, but lack experience gaining skill.

AAFitz wrote:Many have skill in gaining experience, but lack experience gaining skill.

Whoa man, that's deep.