Conquer Club

Timminz wrote:

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?

This might be true to an extent, but there are many instances, where a player does not move up / down for a number of reasons. Klobber comes to mind.

I hear ya Bruce,

I would love the flat points games, but the problem would be with the people who make up multi's just to beat them. They would just make a few games and risk 100 points instead of having to play so many to get 100. I like the scoring system, especially since it really means nothing.

But I hate some of these avatars. They cause me great offense.

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.

Mmhm, my skill is often not improving...


--Andy

there are many threads in the suggestion part of the forums for this Bruce.

From what i have recently discovered about CC - it seems that as TWILL doesnt like it (even thought the VAST percentage of players want it) - its on the - - never to be looked at list.

I requested a community discussion on the topic - - it was ignored.

Regards

DD

Twill doesn't decide what does or doesn't make it onto the To-Do list...Lack does. Scoring fixes and adjustments are big and difficult things, but I encourage you to keep the discussion going.


--Andy

jbrettlip wrote:I would love the flat points games, but the problem would be with the people who make up multi's just to beat them. They would just make a few games and risk 100 points instead of having to play so many to get 100. I like the scoring system, especially since it really means nothing.

But I hate some of these avatars. They cause me great offense.

Score reset would fix that? I am sure it would not be to hard to spot.

true, but the cheating and abuse forums seem extremely congested. I would never do that, since I don't understand computers enough to try and pull something like that! I think you would have to set a cap at 20 pts or something, to keep it not worth cheaters time

I've been playing alot of public terminator games lately, even if you don't win the game and can take out a couple of people you don't get hurt to bad in the points..nice change of pace, sometimes you get tired of the same people in the private games..been playing alot of different maps too, nice change of pace from classic..it would be nice if you could set a public game with a minimum rank...

I like the idea of optional flat-rate points games.

JBoy wrote:I've been playing alot of public terminator games lately, even if you don't win the game and can take out a couple of people you don't get hurt to bad in the points..nice change of pace, sometimes you get tired of the same people in the private games..been playing alot of different maps too, nice change of pace from classic..it would be nice if you could set a public game with a minimum rank...

Yeah I can understand how playing the same people over and over again would get boring. For me I have not played many of these people in singles games. So for now I am looking forward to the challenge.

Ditocoaf wrote: ...Which is why score, after a certain point, isn't really an accurate gauge of your skill; it also becomes a gauge of how well you know how to work the system.

This is true.
And it's the reason the scoring system should not exist.
It does nothing to enhance game play. There are private game options for those wishing to play only a select few opponents.
I play public games which I create. Since anyone can join anyone does join. As my score creeps upward I inevitably reach the point where I can go no higher.

I can beat three higher ranking players in a row, then along comes a cook, gets the drop, gets the dice and gets the cards and I lose more to that one player than I won off the three higher scoring players.

Reality dictates that players accept the simple, obvious and immutable fact that these games are NOT skill-based.

There is NOT A SINGLE player in this system who is any better than a competent player. The games here largely are based on luck. The scoring system seeks to present a different reality, that this essentially is a skill-based game.

There is an element of skill involved.

When all is said and done, the only significant skill differential is knowing how to beat those people who have no clue on how to play the game. Any competent player can beat any other competent player in any game on any day. And any high ranking player can lose to any other player, in any game, on any day.

The drop, Dice, cards, random assignment of turn order all are totally luck-based. No skill involved in those things, and those things are MOST of the game.

jpliberty wrote:When all is said and done, the only significant skill differential is knowing how to beat those people who have no clue on how to play the game.

I can see where you're coming from, as you only play 1v1, and that's where luck plays the biggest factor. When there is only one opponent, there is only one person to attack, and therefore, less to think about when making a move. On the other end of the spectrum, are 8 player games, where you need to be concerned with seven opponents. This DOES require a lot of strategy to win consistently, and relies less on pure luck. If you'd like your games to be more dependent on skill, try other styles. Play some bigger singles games, or team games, and you'll see where strategy comes into play.

I totally agree with bruceswar. I love to play public speed games, but if you lose 1 game you need to win at least half a dozen just to get your points back. Once you get higher up in the points, the only thing you can do to keep them is cut back on the playing and that's not what I'm here for. I think the point system should be revised.

Team games definitely skew the game away from luck towards strategy. It should come as no surprise that there are many players on the front page who eschew the 1v1 luck based game and play, almost exclusively, team games. Obviously there are a few notable exceptions.

A good, controlled, lean mean fighting team, can have a far higher win rate than a single player in a standard 1v1, even though, the essential basics are the same. My stats show:
267 wins out of 512 (52%) 1v1
188 wins out of 366 (51%) Doubles
148 wins out of 216 (69%) Triples

Obviously, I now lean towards playing triples games.

I don't play much public games either.

I play tournament games!

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.

This is not exactly true. It is better to say that on the average your score should be going up, sort of like saying on the average the major stock indexes do actually go up over time, even though on some days, weeks, months it will be lower at the end than on the start.

But there is another problem with the analysis. Some people like taking risks. After getting the hang of one map / style of play, they look at another map / style of play and try it, often with an intial big loss becasuse they are not yet experts at the unique features and challenges of the new map / style of play. In the end they become good at several styles, but the one who is focused need not be worried about the style he does not play. As a result the focused person appears to be more skilled than the broad based person, even though teh latter is more versitile.

Timminz wrote:

jpliberty wrote:When all is said and done, the only significant skill differential is knowing how to beat those people who have no clue on how to play the game.

I can see where you're coming from, as you only play 1v1, and that's where luck plays the biggest factor. When there is only one opponent, there is only one person to attack, and therefore, less to think about when making a move. On the other end of the spectrum, are 8 player games, where you need to be concerned with seven opponents. This DOES require a lot of strategy to win consistently, and relies less on pure luck. If you'd like your games to be more dependent on skill, try other styles. Play some bigger singles games, or team games, and you'll see where strategy comes into play.

I have played those games from the beginning.
I do play those games now.
Each of those games has random assignment of territories and turn order. All but no card games have cards. Random dice are in all. Those all are luck-based, absolutely no skill is involved.
Then, there is the random element of an incredibly stupid player. One such idiot can destroy the best laid "strategies" in any game.

Also, there are a multitude of players who cheat...it is far easier to cheat in a multiplayer game...undisclosed alliances or simply using multis are two ways, and, again, that defeats the best "strategies".

It's a simple and obvious fact that higher ranked players game the rigged scoring system. Citing the very small element of skill involved in these games doesn't take away any of the elements of luck, and they are MOST of the game.

jpliberty wrote:The drop, Dice, cards, random assignment of turn order all are totally luck-based. No skill involved in those things, and those things are MOST of the game.

What do you expect with your game settings. Virtually all of your games are 1v1 flat rate with unlimited forts. First person to go will have a 93.66% chance of winning it.

Change the forts and your chance of winning the game goes up slightly (if you go second.)

flat rate, unlimited is, by far, the most luck based setting you can pick.

The fact that you claim strategy doesn't matter AT ALL, just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

They are really feasable as long as you aren't worried about points .My rank Rarely drops below Major .I love playing all ranks .A few of the higher ranks have real bad attitudes so it really depends on your prospective .
I'd rather play a nice Cook ,then a horrible Conqueror .

I'd play Escalating, but I like the continents to actually matter. With that setting, it's all about the cards, and not at all about whatever map you're actually playing on.

Pedronicus wrote:

jpliberty wrote:The drop, Dice, cards, random assignment of turn order all are totally luck-based. No skill involved in those things, and those things are MOST of the game.

What do you expect with your game settings. Virtually all of your games are 1v1 flat rate with unlimited forts. First person to go will have a 93.66% chance of winning it.

Change the forts and your chance of winning the game goes up slightly (if you go second.)

What you say is inaccurate in more than one way. I haven't played "virtually all" 1v1. And, while going first is a huge advantage, it's nothing like the 93.66% you cite.

Moreover, you are making my point. Many, many Conquer Clubians adjust the games they play and the players they will not play against simply to try and increase their BS Conquer Club score. So what is important, the game, or some BS score, which means nothing except the higher it goes the more certain it becomes that you are gaming the rigged scoring system?

The point you miss is that luck is a huge factor in ANY game type. Moreover, the scoring system used here is an incredibly STUPID choice by the site administrators (I have gone over and over this with Twill, who seems quite proud to cite it as a great scoring system because other gaming sites use it...now there's some simple logic. Just plain STUPID.)

Then add in the fact that so many of the higher ranked players "earned" their score thru bs such as freestyle games (where click speed IS the game---and they aided and abetted their BS scoring opportunities by roping in newbies to play many of those games) and you can realize that the scoring system is a farce. Don't believe me, read Scott-Land's recent comments on the thread touting his recent scoring coup. He openly acknowledges BOTH that he uses a speed system to play the games and that more than 1/3 of his games are this BS type game meant SOLELY to increase score (if someone like Scott-Land finds enjoyment in those type games, fine and good. And, he doesn't see any great achievement in his score, as he makes real clear).

Why then do others?

Because they do not understand that the site administrators are CLUELESS and have chosen a BOGUS scoring system, and that they have chosen this system simply because higher traffic gaming websites use it for their gaming.

The scoring system in use at CC is based on a system created to rank chess players. In chess there are no cards, no different playing boards, and there are only 2 sides. That original system is, in the opinion of many who rank chess players (mathematicians and other rocket scientist types do those rankings) a flawed system to begin with. You see this flaw everytime you see that someone who wins a game gets 6 pts but if they lose it they lose 40 pts. In the very same week, those same two players can swap their relative ranks, and the pts awarded and deducted go the other way.

What utter nonsense.

THE GAME IS LUCK. Almost entirely. Of course, some people see some achievement in their score...but the point is to play and have fun, the point is to win the game. The point certainly should NOT be to allow some cretin types to ruin games so they can make a assinine attempt to increase their BS score.

And we haven't even discussed those who cheat. That is widespread, is the dirty little secret the site administrators won't come clean about, but the obvious fact is that they cannot possibly catch the determined cheats. There is no way to stop the use of multis just like there is really no way to prove secret alliances.

How many of the higher ranked players simply are cheats? I have no way of knowing, but I don't for a second believe that any competent player cannot on any given day beat any other player. Also, after thousands of games, it is VERY clear that no higher ranked player has outdone me in my games. Hell, most wouldn't even play me...that wouldn't help their BS score. Best to stick with newbies, their multi's, their secret alliances, and their totally score inflating games like Freestyle.

UTTER NONSENSE.

Eliminate the scoring system...it draws flies and idiots.

jpliberty wrote:Eliminate the scoring system...it draws flies and idiots.

Are you suggesting that all games be un-ranked, and that no one should have a score at all, or do you think there should be a different system?

Pedronicus wrote:

jpliberty wrote:The drop, Dice, cards, random assignment of turn order all are totally luck-based. No skill involved in those things, and those things are MOST of the game.

What do you expect with your game settings. Virtually all of your games are 1v1 flat rate with unlimited forts. First person to go will have a 93.66% chance of winning it.

Change the forts and your chance of winning the game goes up slightly (if you go second.)

No, this is only true for a few maps... even then, skill can override. Overall, it REALLY depends on the map, and skill.