lackattack, gettinhead, cheap conquerors & other bull & such

[BigBallinStalin]

My fellow ConquerClubbers, the haters are gonna hate, but they will always overlook the actual benefits of this website's current competitive process.

Let the looters and rotters complain about being unable to be the best. Let them wring their hands and blame the allegedly unjust Intensity Cubes, and let them blame their opponents for their own failure. But never let them rent-seek with the CC government in order to unjustly handicap the most accomplished players and deny the inexperienced players the ability to grow and prosper.

The ConquerClub market may be harsh, but it comes with market discipline. They will learn by the numbers! The individuals within the CC market will teach them!

Let the teachers teach, and let the young have the opportunity to become the masters of themselves.

[nippersean]

-doesn't threaten anyone that says a word: just when they are overly negative, bait/flame/troll

-my contribution to the game is: one of the few conquerors that TALKS to lower ranked players and gives them a game. NOT unranked ? new players

Other:
. The majority of negative people who take the time to talk to me in Live Chat leave MUCH less negative -- and willing to join me in games.

Fair play GLG, I'm with you on this one!

We need to work together!

Flame/bating/trolling is abhorrent to me too!

What are all these negatory people about?? We need to stamp out the fact that you can barely play the game. You (we) are the conk, and as your new PR consultant, we need to use the negative word more often! How can these people be so jealous!

We checked the rules together and got away with them! These negative people are trying to drag us down!

Furthermore - no-one has spotted the (bait/flame/troll) ploy as a way to (bait/flame/troll) others.

Once again we are way ahead of the game. No-one noticed the "gross abuse" violation, it's easy street here.

Upwards and onwards!

Screw those fools that don't realise your skills in becoming conk.

It's all about you, me, unsuspecting noobs, dubious members of a certain clan.

We'll hold it together bro' - you and me. Then the masses will understand - pah at the negative negativisms from the negativilites.

Nipp

[DiM]

whether is farming, abusing, ranching, bogrolling, specializing, or whatever you want to call it, the conqueror rank will never be achieved by a person that plays any map and any setting against any opponent.

i don't care how good you are. i don't care if you're a fricking risk genius. you will NEVER get to #1 unless you resort to farming/abusing/ranching/bogrolling/specializing/etc.
this is actually the main problem of this site and its ranking system.

only 2 things can be done:

1. change the scoring formula to one that takes into account map/settings experience/proficiency and actively discourages farming/abusing/ranching/bogrolling/specializing/etc.

2. multiple scoreboards for 1v1/dubs/trips/quads/freestyle/etc. plus an overall scoreboard that's the arithmetic mean of all other scoreboards.
this basically means that players can specialize in whatever they want and farm/abuse/ranch/etc all they want but they'll never get #1 on the overall scoreboard. GLG for instance would rule the 1v1 scoreboard and be the leader there but assuming he's have modest scores in all the other scoreboards, he's would probably be nowhere near the top on the overall scoreboard.
only the people who truly master all the maps and all the settings will get to be on top of the overall scoreboard.



PS: i'm not saying it's an easy thing to use "cheap" tactics. hell no. it takes a lot of work and dedication and a certain kind of skill that frankly most of the people would not be capable of even if they wanted to.
the problem is that because of such "cheap" tactics an all-rounder will never be more than colonel/brigadier.

[AAFitz]

Well, I have to admit, your thread lived up to the title well.

You supplied much more other bull & such than I thought was even possible.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

This is one of the best threads I've read at CC:
-sound basis lead-in
-several very good replies
-below normal baiting by the peanut gallery

But one of the BIGGEST issues Lackattack, King Achilles and detractors miss is that you:
-come and accuse/nay-say from the perspective that GLG is evil
-forget that GLG continually openly admits that he's nowhere near the best player
-you miss totally miss the historical parallels in the automobile industry

Japan made cars that US manufacturers thought were "cheap" -- and maybe they were, but at first they were inexpensive. But, they continually improved their processes and blew away other non-German manufacturers in quality. Then, once they had the volume and improved quality, they moved up the food chain: from compacts, to midsize, to vans, then pick-ups -- and killed the US auto industry. We are in a phase of a cycle.

All I've done is take CC's system, LEARN IT and adjust variables to minimize LOSING. that's it, simple as that. Most of you don't have the patience to do that. Hey, may not be pretty, but it worked.

Several people were right and/or offered some good ideas:
-"Conqueror" is a scoring system. Not MVP, not Home Run King.
-most sports have leagues, then championships. And both Seattle Mariners 70% and Dallas Mavericks 80% didn't progress well in playoffs.
-so have two or three methods of calculating players: Score = regular season, GLADIATOR: have the top 100 fight it out on multiple diverse mixed settings. shit, like Wimbledon, have a singles and team, mens/womens (put me in the women's, or Ranchers).

At 4500 I was going to quit pushing, then MC dropped to within striking range. It wasn't ego that pushed me, it mostly was detractors that fueled the fire. And for those of you that keep impuning KoRT, shame on you.

The biggest problem here is that a FEW vocal forum commenters (20-40) just GOTTA have their way. But one of you said it best: Too often players/complainers think their opinion is best -- and it isn't. And often, many of their assumptions are dead wrong.

[AAFitz]

The biggest problem here is that a FEW vocal forum commenters (20-40) just GOTTA have their way. But one of you said it best: Too often players/complainers think their opinion is best -- and it isn't. And often, many of their assumptions are dead wrong.

I feel like this last statement could be applied to everything you said as well, and what Demonfork said to some extent.

Keep in mind, I never looked into what games you were playing whatsoever, and truly, genuinely don't care and never have cared, so this point is simply about this one post, which made assumptions, and then ended saying assumptions of one or more players could be wrong. I enjoyed the irony.

My other post was about the massive amount of speculations by Demonfork about how the other 99% of the players on the site play, or what they are supposedly capable of.

I personally think his suggestion that 99% could never rise to the top, is akin to suggesting that 99% of the drivers could not drive 150 miles an hour simply because they havent done so. I agree most have not, and a great many would die and kill others, but it probably isn't that many do not have the ability not to do so...its just that they haven't decided to do so, for any number of reasons.

I myself have been here for a long time, and have had many venues to the top open to me, and I have never once actually tried, or even wanted to try to use them for very long. On another site, I held the top spot for almost 6 months, and didn't even enjoy that. I use myself as an example, because I suppose perhaps the 99% of the other players really are trying to be conqueror, and cant seem to make it work, but I suspect that isn't even close to the truth. I simply resent the silliness of suggesting that the only people that could have made it to the top did, because to be quite honest with you, I suspect the ones that would be best suited to make it, were smart enough to never waste their time trying.

That all being said, I love watching people hit the top in new ways that are legal. Its great to see the many different ways its been done, and in some ways, we can all learn from it.

I think its also fair to say we can learn something from watching players hit the top and pat themselves on the back for it....

...as I said...I love irony.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I put this in the suggestion forum years ago. If you play a rank, say 2000 points below you, than the game should not count towards your score. Win or lose

[Pedronicus]

They should rename the suggestions forum. how about the Auschwitz forum? loads goes in, f*ck all comes out.

[generalmighty]

Winning less points for beating lower ranks and vice versa would not be good, it's hard enough, for some of us mere mortals anyway demonfork, to get a high rank as it is. Changing the points system would mean cc would just end up with the vast majority of players on a similar score. And making it so you win no points or lose no points if you play someone with less than a certain number of points than yourself just seems like it makes the game, well, pointless.

It's the invite system that needs sorting, introduce a rule like 'for every invite sent you must start one open game'. That way for every invited player Glg farms one of his detractors can put their money where their mouth is and take him on.

[BigBallinStalin]

Winning less points for beating lower ranks and vice versa would not be good, it's hard enough, for some of us mere mortals anyway demonfork, to get a high rank as it is. Changing the points system would mean cc would just end up with the vast majority of players on a similar score. And making it so you win no points or lose no points if you play someone with less than a certain number of points than yourself just seems like it makes the game, well, pointless.

It's the invite system that needs sorting, introduce a rule like 'for every invite sent you must start one open game'. That way for every invited player Glg farms one of his detractors can put their money where their mouth is and take him on.

There's no need for a rule to induce that behavior.

Why don't one of his detractors do that right now?

[grifftron]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I put this in the suggestion forum years ago. If you play a rank, say 2000 points below you, than the game should not count towards your score. Win or lose

That's an effective way to kill the profit-motive, which incentivizes medium- and high-ranked players to play against or even team-up with lesser ranked players, so that they can teach them how to improve.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

Hey, Mr. Ron Paul fan, I find your post to be at odds with the ideas which Ron Paul represents.


You want a shot at beating the Conqueror and the other Big Shots? Challenge them to a game. Show us who is better. If you could consistently beat the Big Shots, then that's a victory in itself.

[ljex]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

Hey, Mr. Ron Paul fan, I find your post to be at odds with the ideas which Ron Paul represents.


You want a shot at beating the Conqueror and the other Big Shots? Challenge them to a game. Show us who is better. If you could consistently beat the Big Shots, then that's a victory in itself.

this conqueror doesnt play anyone who challenges...even on his own settings. This is why people dont like him more than they didnt like the other people who got there with other ranching tactics

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know why everyone is clapping their hands for demonforks first serious post he has ever posted in his life

All it says in full is to get conqueror these days you have to make sure you enter games that you know you will win because you need to keep that 80%-90% win ratio bs

All the community is wanting is that everyone plays an honest game, eliminating the needs for these kind of tactics and giving those that really deserve to be conqueror a chance at it instead of those that need special win ratio tactics to get it.

Hey, Mr. Ron Paul fan, I find your post to be at odds with the ideas which Ron Paul represents.


You want a shot at beating the Conqueror and the other Big Shots? Challenge them to a game. Show us who is better. If you could consistently beat the Big Shots, then that's a victory in itself.

this conqueror doesnt play anyone who challenges...even on his own settings. This is why people dont like him more than they didnt like the other people who got there with other ranching tactics

That's his choice. I don't play everyone who challenges me, so why should I be forced to?

Furthermore, look at his profile's "Find all games with..." Sure, he played many low rankers, but he's also in a tournament with a lot of big shots, and he's playing a good number of 1800+ and 2000+ players on his favorite map.

So, you're miffed that he won't accept your challenge? Organize a bunch of people on here to constantly hit F5 and pack into his 1v1 speed games--if you really care that much about this.

[Crazyirishman]

You know, there has always been One Man who will accept any challenge, for HONOR!!!!!!!!

[EagleofGreenErth]

General was a bitch to get... cant image getting to 5k

[KraphtOne]

I for one am amazed that someone can spend 3 years playing nothing but 1 vs 1 private games gaining only 3 to 5 points per victory without ever having the desire to try out more types of settings and maps and numbers of opponents... one might say i find it incredible...

like maybe he has more than one account and uses the others to play fun games, like others do...

but that's a little hard to do right? the mods have tools that can detect that right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zhGxgV6vG0

very hard indeed to get just get a proxy and use it when you're on your separate account, and then just use your own ip when playing on your normal account...

wait, it's not that hard at all? you mean sometimes they would have to use circumstantial evidence?

ah, but i digress...

[Rodion]

2. multiple scoreboards for 1v1/dubs/trips/quads/freestyle/etc. plus an overall scoreboard that's the arithmetic mean of all other scoreboards.

I'd love to see that.

I'd divide it this way:

1v1 sequential
1v1 freestyle
2v2 sequential
3v3 sequential
4v4 sequential
team freestyle (or make it 3 separate categories, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4)
assassin
terminator
non-1v1 standard sequential
non-1v1 standard freestyle

That should give 10-12 categories other than the overall one. And I'd LOVE to see a point reset in everyone to see how fast each player would climb into which categories (I love social experiments).

[tec805]

2. multiple scoreboards for 1v1/dubs/trips/quads/freestyle/etc. plus an overall scoreboard that's the arithmetic mean of all other scoreboards.

I'd love to see that.

✚➀

[jefjef]

and now a word from the peanut gallery:

The biggest problem here is that a FEW vocal forum commenters (20-40)

GLG: Where do these numbers come from? Was it like 20 to 40 people that didn't vote for you as the most loveable conqueror? Just trying to confirm what you use as statistical facts.

.

Nippersean + AA Fitz = MOST EXCELLENT POSTS!!!!!

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

and now a word from the peanut gallery:

Nippersean + AA Fitz = MOST EXCELLENT POSTS!!!!!

. . .surely they deserve better, maybe "wicked awesome"?

[Agent 86]

. . .surely they deserve better, maybe "wicked awesome"?

OOH Now there is a bait, fishing good GLG

86

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

dear Mr Lack,

I'd like to submit another analogy for you to consider before doing anything too drastic. Earlier I compared Ranching to the automobile industry. Now I'd like to take a minute and compare to. . .the retail industry:

For years Walmart never competed with "the big boys" of Sears, JC Penny and Kmart (the big 3). They started out building up strength in towns considered just too small for The Big 3. Then once they collected enough critical mass, they entered the major metropolitan areas and competed head on with the The Big 3. Eventually the Big 3 imploded -- beaten at the retail game by a new-start with an ear to THE CONSUMER. Walmart gave people convenient stores, 24 hour service and low prices -- that helped keep US inflation low for decades.

Similarities:
-complainers: either Big 3, or NeimanMarcus/Bloomingdales types that are out of touch with the consumer
-Walmart: GLG and opportunities for the consumer
-low prices: 4-5 point games -- instead of 20 pts
-metropolitan areas: quitting playing cooks, then cadets, then. . .

Again, the focus seems to be on the net result. While I disagree that RANCHING is a "cheap tactic", CC has far worse processes. Please look just as closely at:
-Clickable Maps -- that allow FASTER players to wipe out slower ones on FS, and dominate Battle Royalee, etc.
-teams of 3v3/4v4 that use their experience/communication/teamwork to beat "unsuspecting newer players"
. . .those are just a few

There is a reason Caveat Emptor is a hallmark motto of capitalism. And I'm amazed that management seems to admit they are about to control situations they haven't even played in, based on input from The Money Changers.

Look for next analogy: British ships vs Spanish ships in The Spanish Armada

[eddie2]

lol i now think it is funny what some are saying.

ranching needs to be done to stay top because the people are doing it to catch the top spot... well you guys just think long and hard for a second if ranching was to become illegal then the people chasing the top spot won't be able to do it either.....