Dugcarr and questions from a concerned CC player.

[GrazingCattle]

Check your inbox buddy! I have been holding on to those for far too long.

youre on mate but check ur positions i am dead yet another time

I don't know. i have made some stupid mistakes the last few games. Forgot to fort, attacked the wrong territory, advancing my horde when all I needed to do was advance 0 and I would win.

You have a chance.

[MOBAJOBG]

2007-03-02 23:01:54 - MOBAJOBG, Blitzaholic won the game
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - hecter loses 7 points
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - Tractorman loses 7 points
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - MOBAJOBG gains 7 points
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - Blitzaholic gains 7 points

2007-03-17 20:56:56 - napoleononacid, tvanwho won the game
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - sexyteddy loses 20 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - kactus loses 20 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - MOBAJOBG loses 55 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - Blitzaholic loses 55 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - napoleononacid gains 75 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - tvanwho gains 75 points

It's 55/7=approximately 8. Therefore, we have to play 9 games and must win 8 of those just to break even.

[qeee1]

2007-03-02 23:01:54 - MOBAJOBG, Blitzaholic won the game
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - hecter loses 7 points
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - Tractorman loses 7 points
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - MOBAJOBG gains 7 points
2007-03-02 23:01:54 - Blitzaholic gains 7 points

2007-03-17 20:56:56 - napoleononacid, tvanwho won the game
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - sexyteddy loses 20 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - kactus loses 20 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - MOBAJOBG loses 55 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - Blitzaholic loses 55 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - napoleononacid gains 75 points
2007-03-17 20:56:56 - tvanwho gains 75 points

It's 55/7=approximately 8. Therefore, we have to play 9 games and must win 8 of those just to break even.

the point remains it's far easier to get a high score playing mainly doubles and triples... a simple look at the scoreboard should convince you of that. Also Samus' post in this thread is a good one.

I'm totally for a revamp of the score system, I've just yet to see a viable alternative, aside from splitting the rankings.

... Although that might not be a bad thing, but all that recalculation might take CC offline for a while. Either that or everyone's score would have to be wiped. Perhaps if we got more info as to the possibility of such a split we could have a poll on if people want it given the drawbacks.

[AK_iceman]

I much preferred your previous avatar qeee.

[Robinette]

the point remains it's far easier to get a high score playing mainly doubles and triples... a simple look at the scoreboard should convince you of that. Also Samus' post in this thread is a good one.

I'm totally for a revamp of the score system, I've just yet to see a viable alternative, aside from splitting the rankings.

But that IS the viable alternative... after all, there really are 2 MAJORLY different ways to play this game... singles and teams.

Seems to me all this "broken" talk would be minimized by having split ranks. And then the team games would be an end unto themselves, and there would be harmony everywhere.

[Kugelblitz22]

alleged "broken system"

C'mon which of the following scenarios is more likely?

1. The generals just all happen to be in all doubles and triples games. It's just a coincidence, thats what they like to play.

2. The scoring system favors doubles and triples games.

No wonder we can't get the scoring fixed we still have people running around saying there is no inherent bias in the system...

[qeee1]

But that IS the viable alternative... after all, there really are 2 MAJORLY different ways to play this game... singles and teams.

Seems to me all this "broken" talk would be minimized by having split ranks. And then the team games would be an end unto themselves, and there would be harmony everywhere.

Ok, then well then I ask for the info regarding what splitting would entail. I'm sure it's possible to do if all scores were wiped, but would it be possible to do retrospectively? I'll go type up a suggestion or something. *grumble grumble*

Also I'm sorry AK, I'll put more colour into the next one.

EDIT- WHOOPS, appears it's been suggested several times. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15866 I'm gonna go look at the thread it was first rejected in and go moan some. Updates to follow.

FURTHER EDIT-
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=310630#310630
The thread where gametype specific scoreboards were rejected (the one linked from the to do list) gives no info as to why, so I've asked why.

[jaydog]

I much preferred your previous avatar qeee.

me too

[qeee1]

I much preferred your previous avatar qeee.

me too

It's like this I go for some funny happy avatar to highlight my humorousness and not seriousness, then a serious avatar of to highlight my seriousness/deep insightful thought. Yes those two contradict each other, but that's intentional, it's part of that deep insightful thought thingy.

Funny the people who compliment me on each different type of avatar.

People who liked pii, wilde, salinger- Jolly Roger... and ehh...
People who liked purple tentacle, kirby, link- ... everyone else

Just messing with you guys, but my avatar is here for a while.

[iteachjava]

But that IS the viable alternative... after all, there really are 2 MAJORLY different ways to play this game... singles and teams.

I'm sure this will get lost in all the many threads discussing this subject, but there more than 2 majorly different ways to play. I've tried playing the many, many variations in my short career here and find there are different strategies for almost all of them. Sequential vs Freestyle, Unlimited vs Adjacent, singles vs doubles vs triples, flat rate vs escalating. Having a conquer club rating isn't the same as a chess rating. Every chess match has the same rules where here there are many more ways to play (I'm sure someone here has figured out the # or combinations). Now if your official chess rating included speed chess and other variations in it, would your score really reflect how you would do against another player? Maybe, maybe not. It could maybe only give you a general idea that you should beat someone who's 300 points below you.

Anyway, I guess I would fall on the side of saying that yes, the point system here isn't perfect. It would be much more meaningful to be able to compare stats based on types of matches. But we don't have that, so score is just for fun.

On the other hand, I do find it less than interesting to see people who play the exact same type of match all the time. I think the variety is part of the strength of this site. If I wanted to specialize in freestyle escalating matches on Middle Earth, I suppose I could, but where's the fun in that.

(just my first post, be kind)

[qeee1]

But that IS the viable alternative... after all, there really are 2 MAJORLY different ways to play this game... singles and teams.

I'm sure this will get lost in all the many threads discussing this subject, but there more than 2 majorly different ways to play. I've tried playing the many, many variations in my short career here and find there are different strategies for almost all of them. Sequential vs Freestyle, Unlimited vs Adjacent, singles vs doubles vs triples, flat rate vs escalating. Having a conquer club rating isn't the same as a chess rating. Every chess match has the same rules where here there are many more ways to play (I'm sure someone here has figured out the # or combinations). Now if your official chess rating included speed chess and other variations in it, would your score really reflect how you would do against another player? Maybe, maybe not. It could maybe only give you a general idea that you should beat someone who's 300 points below you.

Anyway, I guess I would fall on the side of saying that yes, the point system here isn't perfect. It would be much more meaningful to be able to compare stats based on types of matches. But we don't have that, so score is just for fun.

On the other hand, I do find it less than interesting to see people who play the exact same type of match all the time. I think the variety is part of the strength of this site. If I wanted to specialize in freestyle escalating matches on Middle Earth, I suppose I could, but where's the fun in that.

(just my first post, be kind)

A fair point, but I think the team/non teams is the major divide. Certainly it's the one that's causing the most heated debate, so if we could seperate them that'd be great. I also hate these one type of game specialists... annoys the hell out of me for some reason, but that's their choice I guess.

[DavSav]

My team wins around 19 out of 20 triples games.

If you find it fun to play mostly newbies and deadbeats you are welcome to that, but how boring isn't that? Trippgames with high ranking players set up in public is only there to get points against bad players. How someone find that fun is beyond me. I have played some of them as I got asked to join, but playing them is autopilot becouse you cant lose when playing newbies. Antone in it only for the points can play them as much as they like. I want to get challenged in my games. Playing doubles and tripples against good players on the other hand is a lot of fun. At least then you have something to play about as well as points

[DavSav]

I've heard a few people claim "it's broken." Can someone please explain to me in a succinct, readable post why you think that?

because since a players sux, and his or her score is at 200, when they win, they get 100 points from ever player.

If they have 200 points the would lose a hole lot more than they win so probably would be fair handicap

[DavSav]

the point remains it's far easier to get a high score playing mainly doubles and triples... a simple look at the scoreboard should convince you of that. Also Samus' post in this thread is a good one.

A lot of high ranked players play tons of tripp games with newbies if they want points and no game as far as I concern they are welcome to it. If they play team games against good players I find it just as good of a win as if they played singles.

[qeee1]

the point remains it's far easier to get a high score playing mainly doubles and triples... a simple look at the scoreboard should convince you of that. Also Samus' post in this thread is a good one.

A lot of high ranked players play tons of tripp games with newbies if they want points and no game as far as I concern they are welcome to it. If they play team games against good players I find it just as good of a win as if they played singles.

So what are you advocating?

[osujacket]

Ill through in some of my thoughts on this scoring system. I think I am a decent player and have played lots of doubles, triples and singles.

I use to play many many singles in public as well as doubles and triples. When I did so I would bounce between 1900 pts and 2500 pts. I dont think I ever got above 2500 while I was playing public singles.

I made a decision in my mind that I wanted to reach general. No certain reason other than I wanted to reach it and prove that I could.

I tried playing doubles with low ranking players. That was a nightmare for me. You have to tell some players every move and I didnt enjoy it. Also didnt make any points.

Doubles with good players was fun for me and is still my favorite type of game. I like 4 player doubles because a 3rd team cant screw up your plans. Good bad right or wrong thats the game I liked.

When I made the decision to make general I played two types of games. I played singles but only against the very top ranking players in which I held my own and triples games with people that are good players with average scores.

IMHO playing triples is the easist way to get a high score if thats what your trying to do. You also have to have teamates that work together which can be difficult for people. Lastly when you do play singles to keep a high score you almost have to play high ranking players.

I think any player who has above 2500 pts choses the style of games they play. If they play singles they most often play other high ranking players. If they play doubles or triples they win most of thier games.

Is the scoring system broke I have no idea and dont worry about it to much. I feel that it is what it is and we all have to abide by it.

I think it favors triples players but more from the stand point of its difficult for opposing teams to get a 3 player team that is competitive. I think there are less wild cards in triples games because its one vs one and the better team can find a way to win. I made it to general playing triples not doubles or singles.

The idea I have heard I like best is having a score for singles, doubles, and triples. That would be interesting to see. Until someone changes it though we all have to live with it and there is no point hating someone for playing as the system is.

Sorry for the ramble. Thats my $.02

[DavSav]

the point remains it's far easier to get a high score playing mainly doubles and triples... a simple look at the scoreboard should convince you of that. Also Samus' post in this thread is a good one.

A lot of high ranked players play tons of tripp games with newbies if they want points and no game as far as I concern they are welcome to it. If they play team games against good players I find it just as good of a win as if they played singles.

So what are you advocating?

Nothing. Not much to do about points, there will always be possible to get points from newbies unless we have some kind of system that prevent players to play anyone with less than 1k points(4k player can only play 3k and so on) or something like that.

But I don't really care what they do, I play games because it is fun. I try not to play newbies, not because of points I just don't see any challange in it

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

You do realize high ranked players get like 10 points or less for a doubles win? You do realize they lose like 40-50 points for a loss right? Now I just glanced at a few of these doubles games with Blitz paired with a low ranked player, so the numbers are a bit vague. I would be curious to see if anyone actually looked at Blitz's stats over time to prove your alleged "broken system" point?

I have to maintain a 5-1 ratio just to come out ahead. It sucks to win 5 games and than lose 1 because your partner misplayed a round and lose all the points you just won. Or a player sucide attacks you in a singles game. Or the other players form an alliance against you. Etc. This is why players like myself and Blitz only play with certain players. Alot of people want a shot to play us, but dont understand all the nonsense we put up with. I get 10 PM's a day with challenges. And when I dont accept, im hit with spam name calling or even left negative feedback. I add these players to my ignore list which sometimes causes them to leave negative feedback. So until you reach the level of General, nobody really has the right to judge those at the top.

[alex_white101]

triples wins you points as people that really want to do well organise teams, whereas very very few people that play in public games organise triples teams to play against them. therefore these randomly made teams are often easy pickings due to the poor organisation of the team and often the inexperience of these players.

and i think the scoring is not broken, i played against blitz the other day, him and his partner won a massive 10 points from me! whereas if myself and my partner had won we would have taken 50 off him. he plays in games where he has much to lose and little to gain. if hes made it to the top this way then good on him!

[MorsGotha]

I have no problem with anything you have said here, the main problem I have is with the scoring system. I am going to make a few counter points to your post about why I have a problem and I hope you can take my comments to your post as constructive:

I have to maintain a 5-1 ratio just to come out ahead.

I agree, from the numbers I have seen that is how it goes.

It sucks to win 5 games and than lose 1 because your partner misplayed a round and lose all the points you just won.

As you are about to say; it sucks to play standard games where a random player chooses you instead of the other 4 players to suicide against. C'est la vie.

Or a player sucide attacks you in a singles game. Or the other players form an alliance against you. Etc. This is why players like myself and Blitz only play with certain players.

I have no problem with that, I have a problem in that you can exploit this. I wont go into it in any detail since I have posted a link earlier in this thread.

Alot of people want a shot to play us, but dont understand all the nonsense we put up with. I get 10 PM's a day with challenges. And when I dont accept, im hit with spam name calling or even left negative feedback.

I am calling you here, indeed I am flat out telling you that you are full of shit concerning this sentence. Do you think seriously think that people here haven't been on top in one place or another on the internet?

Perhaps you are telling me that you and you only (and your high ranked buddies) get shit from idiots? Hell, I have more negative feedback than you. If you would like to try and be clever and try to tell me I deserve it, I invite anyone to look into the games, players and events because I have nothing to fear.

I add these players to my ignore list which sometimes causes them to leave negative feedback. So until you reach the level of General, nobody really has the right to judge those at the top.

1. Why do we not? What makes you so righteous?

2. Because I play standard games only I will never get to be a general. Why does that make you so much better than me that you dont have to be called out?

3. Do you think it a coincidence that all the top players are team game players?


MG.[/quote]

[alex_white101]

well said morsgotha, johnny you did sound very arrogant......

[keiths31]

It's just a game for fun people. Relax. Most are playing for free, and some of us have paid for a membership, to play a f#cking board game online. There is no prize for the best. You get bragging rights on an online game site. That is it.
I enjoy playing on here and don't take myself or the games too seriously. If win, I win. If lose, so I lose. The name calling and childish behavior is what will drive people away from this site, not that a select few know how to build up their points to extreme levels.

[subjekt]

How is it arrogant? ITS THE TRUTH....win ratios spam and everything...f*ck Alex I never said a thing but we lost 5/6 games with you as a VERY RECENT parnter becasue you play fucking terrible....you think I am happy about that? I was very cordial to you and said shit happens etc....now please do me a favour and go back to your clueless little hole and STFU....in order for me to get back those points I realistically have to win 15 games.

-Sub-

[alex_white101]

yeah we played 5 games, lost 3 won 1 and the other aint lookin good, boo hoo ah well i can handle it. plus we played 4 against a kick ass team.......you said it yourself.

also i play badly. im not to fussed. plus what do i care if you have to win 15 games? its not like you havent played 800......

you take this GAME a little to seriously for me.

anyways good luck to you in the future. im sure you can win those points back. apparently its wat ur life revolves around........

[wicked]

Didn't know if you guys had seen this or not, as to why a separate scoring system was rejected:

Some game logs are missing so i can't go back and recalculate all scores. Resetting scores would be be less than ideal. I don't think it's a priority at this time. Them are the reasons.