Page 2 of 4
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:28 am
by pimphawks70
Optimus Prime wrote:Bruceswar wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Well if your goal is to gain points. Personally, I like to PLAY ... even if I do lose sometimes.
Decide what you want... and if it really is worth just "sitting" to have that "crown".
It is not about the gaining / losing of points. It is about seeking out better players. Better competition if you would call it that. I enjoy this game a lot and I like public games, but I seek more from CC. Not that lower ranking people are less of a person, but this is a game of skill. Maybe I am trying to say I am a bit tired of getting suicided on or people chasing a 2 bonus in escalating cards.
The problem I see with that statement is that there are countless very solid players in the ranks of Corporal, Corporal First Class, and even Private and Private First Class. I know everyone thinks that your rank is such a "determiner of skill and quality of play", but that's a load of crap in my opinion. I've got the skill to beat high ranked players without lucky drops or miracle dice (I've done it plenty of times), as do many others. The high rankers just don't want to come down to our neck of the woods and have a go at us.
I like how the only people who think rank is inaccurate are those who have a shitty one. It's like saying we are better than our record in a sport. No your not!
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:29 am
by owenshooter
Optimus Prime wrote: I've got the skill to beat high ranked players without lucky drops or miracle dice (I've done it plenty of times), as do many others.
The high rankers just don't want to come down to our neck of the woods and have a go at us.
then why don't you come up here and teach everyone a lesson... and my rank isn't even that high!!!-0
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:31 am
by Optimus Prime
owenshooter wrote:Optimus Prime wrote: I've got the skill to beat high ranked players without lucky drops or miracle dice (I've done it plenty of times), as do many others.
The high rankers just don't want to come down to our neck of the woods and have a go at us.
then why don't you come up here and teach everyone a lesson... and my rank isn't even that high!!!-0
Because none of us can get into the big boy games, remember? Anyways, I don't know that I would be "teaching anyone a lesson", but I do know that I can play pretty solid and win a few here and there against the big boys. Not worth the drama though, to be honest. If I did win a game, most of them (not all, but most) would just moan about it somehow.
I'd rather play the public games that move more quickly and try my luck with the cadets and corporals.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:31 am
by Optimus Prime
pimphawks70 wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:Bruceswar wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Well if your goal is to gain points. Personally, I like to PLAY ... even if I do lose sometimes.
Decide what you want... and if it really is worth just "sitting" to have that "crown".
It is not about the gaining / losing of points. It is about seeking out better players. Better competition if you would call it that. I enjoy this game a lot and I like public games, but I seek more from CC. Not that lower ranking people are less of a person, but this is a game of skill. Maybe I am trying to say I am a bit tired of getting suicided on or people chasing a 2 bonus in escalating cards.
The problem I see with that statement is that there are countless very solid players in the ranks of Corporal, Corporal First Class, and even Private and Private First Class. I know everyone thinks that your rank is such a "determiner of skill and quality of play", but that's a load of crap in my opinion. I've got the skill to beat high ranked players without lucky drops or miracle dice (I've done it plenty of times), as do many others. The high rankers just don't want to come down to our neck of the woods and have a go at us.
I like how the only people who think rank is inaccurate are those who have a shitty one. It's like saying we are better than our record in a sport. No your not!
Yes, because my rank is so incredibly "shitty".
It's better than over two thirds of CC last time I checked, I wouldn't necessarily call that "shitty", but perhaps your definition wanders a little to the extreme in your world.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:32 am
by Bruceswar
Optimus Prime wrote:Bruceswar wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Well if your goal is to gain points. Personally, I like to PLAY ... even if I do lose sometimes.
Decide what you want... and if it really is worth just "sitting" to have that "crown".
It is not about the gaining / losing of points. It is about seeking out better players. Better competition if you would call it that. I enjoy this game a lot and I like public games, but I seek more from CC. Not that lower ranking people are less of a person, but this is a game of skill. Maybe I am trying to say I am a bit tired of getting suicided on or people chasing a 2 bonus in escalating cards.
The problem I see with that statement is that there are countless very solid players in the ranks of Corporal, Corporal First Class, and even Private and Private First Class. I know everyone thinks that your rank is such a "determiner of skill and quality of play", but that's a load of crap in my opinion. I've got the skill to beat high ranked players without lucky drops or miracle dice (I've done it plenty of times), as do many others. The high rankers just don't want to come down to our neck of the woods and have a go at us.
This is true to an extent. You can counter that with if you can beat the high ranking players, why not move up the ranks and then you will get invites to private games or just games with people close to your rank. There are many good players at the lower ranks, but to a better player will continue to move up the ranks. Now that is not to say I will never play low ranks again, but just not as many. Once a person masters the basics, the rest is fine tuning. Most people have trouble grasping the basics needed to win.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:37 am
by Optimus Prime
Bruceswar wrote:This is true to an extent. You can counter that with if you can beat the high ranking players, why not move up the ranks and then you will get invites to private games or just games with people close to your rank. There are many good players at the lower ranks, but to a better player will continue to move up the ranks. Now that is not to say I will never play low ranks again, but just not as many. Once a person masters the basics, the rest is fine tuning. Most people have trouble grasping the basics needed to win.
I see your point, it makes sense, but none of you guys are going to give a tournament regular passwords to those games very often. I'm not one of those guys who has a few specialty maps I can play on to counteract a few bad tournament games here and there, and in many tournaments, a second or third place finish gets you what you need, it isn't all about winning, hence the reason my score goes up and down so often.
Now, sure, winning is a big point to this site, and I applaud those who go for the win every single time, in tournament games I do that as well as often as I can, but sometimes it just makes sense to take the 30 point hit and advance to the next round. I suppose it has to do with what someone else said above about finding what really entertains you about the site.
Would I like to be somewhere in the 1800-2000 point range? Sure, I would, it's a goal of mine that I'm going to start working on once I get down to 0 games and can "reset" my mojo so-to-speak, but will I go to extreme lengths to get there? Probably not, I like public games because I run across so many more people. It gets stagnant for me to play the same 40-50 folks all the time over and over. It gets too predictable.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:40 am
by qeee1
When you play an even spread of games you are getting out what you put in. It's just you expect to get out more, why should you have a brigadier rank? People with less skill than you playing the system may have gotten it, but that's not because public games are unfeasible, it's because they're playing the system.
You either accept that people with less skill than you will place better than you, or you join them in playing the system.
Optimus Prime, chances are you have gotten lucky and not seen it.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:46 am
by Optimus Prime
qeee1 wrote:When you play an even spread of games you are getting out what you put in. It's just you expect to get out more, why should you have a brigadier rank? People with less skill than you playing the system may have gotten it, but that's not because public games are unfeasible, it's because they're playing the system.
You either accept that people with less skill than you will place better than you, or you join them in playing the system.
Optimus Prime, chances are you have gotten lucky and not seen it.
Oh, I'm sure I got lucky on several occasions, but I know for a fact there were a handful of games that I simply flat out won, no miracle dice, lucky drop, or anything. I just outplayed them. Not a ton of those games, but there have been a few. And I'm more than willing to admit those guys beat me fair and square in other games multiple times.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:53 am
by Bruceswar
qeee1 wrote:When you play an even spread of games you are getting out what you put in. It's just you expect to get out more, why should you have a brigadier rank? People with less skill than you playing the system may have gotten it, but that's not because public games are unfeasible, it's because they're playing the system.
You either accept that people with less skill than you will place better than you, or you join them in playing the system.
Optimus Prime, chances are you have gotten lucky and not seen it.
Playing the system sucks. I am not klobber here.
On a serious note, I just want to make Brig once so I can say I did it. After that I can move up down again. It is just one of my goals right now.
To Optimus Prime -- Everybody starts this site out at 1000, some go up and many go down. The better players will move up the board sooner or later, it is just a matter of time. Once you move up the board some the invites to games with better players start rolling in. As I said before being a lower ranked player does not make you less of a person.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:56 am
by Optimus Prime
Bruceswar wrote:qeee1 wrote:When you play an even spread of games you are getting out what you put in. It's just you expect to get out more, why should you have a brigadier rank? People with less skill than you playing the system may have gotten it, but that's not because public games are unfeasible, it's because they're playing the system.
You either accept that people with less skill than you will place better than you, or you join them in playing the system.
Optimus Prime, chances are you have gotten lucky and not seen it.
Playing the system sucks. I am not klobber here.
On a serious note, I just want to make Brig once so I can say I did it. After that I can move up down again. It is just one of my goals right now.
To Optimus Prime -- Everybody starts this site out at 1000, some go up and many go down. The better players will move up the board sooner or later, it is just a matter of time. Once you move up the board some the invites to games with better players start rolling in. As I said before being a lower ranked player does not make you less of a person.
Well, then after I hit 0 active games and begin my climb in earnest, I shall put that to the test and see how I have to get before the invites start showing up.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:58 am
by gannable
im think im at that point.
i'll be creating games and emailing me certain people to join.
i was recently suicided by two noobs in a world2.1 game its pretty much given the game to a smart lieutenant. its frustrating when the stupidity of other players completely ruin your chances
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:04 am
by qeee1
Bruceswar wrote:Playing the system sucks. I am not klobber here.
On a serious note, I just want to make Brig once so I can say I did it. After that I can move up down again. It is just one of my goals right now.
Do it the right way and it'll feel better.
I definitely think brig is possible without playing the system... though I'm not so sure about any rank after that.
Good luck in your quest.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:09 am
by pimphawks70
Optimus Prime wrote:pimphawks70 wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:Bruceswar wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Well if your goal is to gain points. Personally, I like to PLAY ... even if I do lose sometimes.
Decide what you want... and if it really is worth just "sitting" to have that "crown".
It is not about the gaining / losing of points. It is about seeking out better players. Better competition if you would call it that. I enjoy this game a lot and I like public games, but I seek more from CC. Not that lower ranking people are less of a person, but this is a game of skill. Maybe I am trying to say I am a bit tired of getting suicided on or people chasing a 2 bonus in escalating cards.
The problem I see with that statement is that there are countless very solid players in the ranks of Corporal, Corporal First Class, and even Private and Private First Class. I know everyone thinks that your rank is such a "determiner of skill and quality of play", but that's a load of crap in my opinion. I've got the skill to beat high ranked players without lucky drops or miracle dice (I've done it plenty of times), as do many others. The high rankers just don't want to come down to our neck of the woods and have a go at us.
considering u r only about 100 points above what u start with and your record is somewhere in the 1400's then I would call that pretty crappy. You have an excuse though becasue u put so much time and effort into your tounaments. Now that you said you are done with tounaments I bet your score will go up
I like how the only people who think rank is inaccurate are those who have a shitty one. It's like saying we are better than our record in a sport. No your not!
Yes, because my rank is so incredibly "shitty".
It's better than over two thirds of CC last time I checked, I wouldn't necessarily call that "shitty", but perhaps your definition wanders a little to the extreme in your world.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:49 pm
by Ditocoaf
Yeah... sometimes people seem to forget that anything Private 1st Class and up is above average. Except in the world you live in, where the average rank is Brigadier, and a Major "isn't that high up there."
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:39 pm
by cisco2001
This is a timely thread for me as I have been giving this topic a lot of thought recently. For those that know me, all of my games are public with the exception of tournaments or very few private games when I'm invited.
My score has ranged anywhere from 2600 to 1800 in the past few months. My win percentage has stayed the same at 30%. I play 6-8 player escalating games. I start games and whoever wants to join is welcome. I get a wide variety of ranks in my games and have seen some excellent privates and some really shitty lieutenants. I've noticed that captains and above make very few mistakes.
However, it has been very difficult for me to progress in my rank due to some of the wild variables that happen in these games. As Bruce and other players have mentioned, you can get wiped out by suicides or very commonly by an inexperienced player that just wants to hold Asia..lol. I know that my score would be much higher if I played with players of my ranking or higher because my winning percentage is so constant. What really rocks my score is losing a game to lower ranked players. As somebody said earlier, the risk vs. reward is not comparable.
I ran the numbers and based upon the amount of games I've played in the last 3 months with the same winning percentage; my score would have been much higher if I would have been playing with equally ranked players.
The main reason that I don't play just private games with players of my rank is the fun factor. I'm not sure if it's worth it to me. I can't imagine giving up the adventure of starting a new game and battling it out with players that I've never met before. On the flip side, I can't imagine that it's a lot of fun playing with the same group over and over.
I wish that there was a way that I could continue playing in public games without getting hosed whenever an inexperienced play decides that he just has to have Europe. As it stands now, I understand the frustration of other players that want the fun and adventure of public games but hate the disparity of risking a huge amount of points when the reward, in comparison, is minimal.
Outside of changing the scoring system or allowing a clause such as, a set amount of points per player to join a game, the only answer is to keep playing public games or give up the fun and play private games.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:53 pm
by Scott-Land
Optimus Prime wrote:Because none of us can get into the big boy games, remember? Anyways, I don't know that I would be "teaching anyone a lesson", but I do know that I can play pretty solid and win a few here and there against the big boys. Not worth the drama though, to be honest. If I did win a game, most of them (not all, but most) would just moan about it somehow.
I'd rather play the public games that move more quickly and try my luck with the cadets and corporals.
Yep- have to agree. When I was sitting an account, I had the opportunity to see OP play. Although it was mostly No Cards, OP did play extremely well.
Even in the 8 man games I play, I get a chuckle when I see a Cook or Private say " you know bonuses aren't worth it" to a higher rank. Certainly a lot of Cooks that have become very good- DrUniverse to name one.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:02 pm
by FabledIntegral
Bruceswar wrote:qeee1 wrote:When you play an even spread of games you are getting out what you put As I said before being a lower ranked player does not make you less of a person.
Don't bullshit them Bruce... you know that's a blatant lie. They're all scum...
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:04 pm
by FabledIntegral
Scott-Land wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:Because none of us can get into the big boy games, remember? Anyways, I don't know that I would be "teaching anyone a lesson", but I do know that I can play pretty solid and win a few here and there against the big boys. Not worth the drama though, to be honest. If I did win a game, most of them (not all, but most) would just moan about it somehow.
I'd rather play the public games that move more quickly and try my luck with the cadets and corporals.
Yep- have to agree. When I was sitting an account, I had the opportunity to see OP play. Although it was mostly No Cards, OP did play extremely well.
Even in the 8 man games I play, I get a chuckle when I see a Cook or Private say " you know bonuses aren't worth it" to a higher rank. Certainly a lot of Cooks that have become very good- DrUniverse to name one.
DrUniverse was a cook? Never would have guessed... he's one of the players that I feel solid when he's bordering me and can trust not to make stupid moves... we've butted heads occasionally but we're generally good with each other.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:07 pm
by max is gr8
Public games work both ways, I was once a cook, I've skyrocketed in the past month up to 2400 points
Now I'm fighting to go up to 2500 but each night I lose approximately 200 points, which means to make a gain I have to win more than I lose. It is easy when you know how. But to gain a good rank you need to fight upwards to get a positive point gain, it's hard but if you find the game style, the map, etc. You can do it. The medals also add a new context players with lots of medals are better than those without lots. If you can win on lots of styles you must be a good player
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:19 pm
by Koe_Tom2801
My score not that great yet low 1700 but do see an issue with gaining points when all the players you play have lower scores. I would like an option to have public games but have a minimum score to join the game. I play a lot of double now but have to win 7 out of 10 to gain points
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:23 pm
by Timminz
Koe_Tom2801 wrote: I play a lot of double now but have to win 7 out of 10 to gain points
and, as you get higher, you'll have to win even more than that. That's how it works, and how it should work.
1700 points puts you in the top 8.4% of active players. That's pretty good, when you think about it.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:22 pm
by cisco2001
I would love an option that would allow you to set a point limit on how many you could win or...lose. Almost like a gaming table in Las Vegas. For example, you could start a twenty point, escalating, sequential unlimited game where if you won; you would win 20 points from each player and only lose twenty if you were eliminated. More aggressive players could set a game at a 100 points! Now that would be interest some players. Anyhow, the idea is that players could join games not just on settings but also on how many points they were willing to gamble or "risk."
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:47 pm
by Shatners Bassoon
i play a mix of public and private....and right now my score's never been higher
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:14 pm
by Ditocoaf
I think the main thing is this: The way we play is often based on the thought that if your score doesn't keep going up, then you're doing something wrong. But the score system is based on the thought that your score will only go up if your skill is improving.
Re: Public games are just not feasable...
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:18 pm
by Timminz
Ditocoaf wrote:I think the main thing is this: The way we play is often based on the thought that if your score doesn't keep going up, then you're doing something wrong. But the score system is based on the thought that your score will only go up if your skill is improving.
Exactly. Now, why can't more people understand this?