Rank Causing Segregation

[AAFitz]

Well, there certainly are not a plethora of public games with higher ranked players. I look for them, and unless you are interested in doubles or trips, you won't see them. Apparently, they got their points in private games?

Anyways, I mostly do play public games. I play games with all ranks, and do not discriminate.

HOWEVER, noobs have been deadbeating more than ever recently, so I can certainly say that I there have been times when I wished I didn't HAVE to play public games against anyone who hasn't played at LEAST 5 games.

Personally, I think that they join their 4 games, and when they don't fill up right away, get bored waiting and simply leave.

they got them the same way everyone did...playing players at thier level and rising....the difference is most of the high ranks dont complain about it...they win and move on....the main reason they stick to the same ranks in singles, is because they avoid cheaters, deadbeaters, neg feedbacks for nothing, abusive players, inexperienced players, and other conflicts and are therefore able to have much more fun

I know this, because i only played colonels games for a while....now that my score has dropped, i can play far more open games, but do not really enjoy them one tenth as much as playing with the experienced players...

just win some games, get some points, and play the higher ranked players all you want....

or if you feel charitable, give your points to all the multis and lower ranked players you want....but I bet you dont join games with all the lowest ranking players on the scoreboard....i bet if you start losing 50 or 60 points per game, and then win 6 or 7...you wont play them anymore....give it a try though, and let me know how it works out...

Until then, improve your game, gain some points, and play all the players you want....but complaining about what games others decide to play is kind of silly

Well, I may not be a general or anything, but I have been playing a fair share... I win a few too.

So Fitz, you are agreeing with the allegation that you use your rank to determine who you play to the exclusivity of the lower ranked players?

I guess it just depends on the person. Some people play for points and rank, while others just want to play. I simply play to play. I really am not so concerned about rank. It's nice, but it's not the reason I play.

ah, you fast posted...i deleted most of that...read my revised one...i only skimmed your original post...you were only talking about the score system itself, not what the players play...i deleted most of what you quoted there, and changed it....i honestly just assumed you were complaining what games players like to play....

when i re read your post, i deleted it instantly...but you got to it first....

but my revised one does answer your question for the most part....

ive typed out my response to this so many times...i go up in rank and down so often, and have played with the best, and play lots of open games...this is a game, it needs a score...it needs a graduating scoring system, or it would be even worse...if it was flat...there would be players with 10000 points, and you would never beable to catch them, and youd be complaining about that....weve had 5 or 6 players at the top of the scoreboard recently, no one can break the 4000 point barrier except for blitz....which keeps the game very competitive....if it was flat rate, it really would segregate the place even more....for someone with 1400 points...2400 points may seem like a lot, but it really isnt...great players can do that in very few games...

the only thing i would like to see is a group of games that have no points, because then people could play pick up games with no scoring consequence, so the top scorers could just play some games for fun....which is almost impossible with the current system..

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

post the whole conversation. not what you want everyone to read. twice I asked you to stop attacking our own team and you continued.

whats even more amazing is, I added you to my ignore list after that game and you cried on PM's and the forum to have it lifted and I did. And now you post more gay shit about the exact reason why you were on the ignore list. So how do you think im going to react now?

the fact i attacked u mad eno difference to the game outcome, i attacked u and took 1 army from u, next go the other guy cashed and went thru all of ur armies and had a load to spare, u were going out no matter whether i did wat i did or not. it simply was not my fault we lost.

and u may have noticed i asked to be taken off ur ignore list so i can play games AGAINST you. which i was then added back to as i have beaten you in several triples games. u just cant handle losing, u also added my partners to ur ignore list after we beat you. thats very sad. oh well im not here for much longer and im in 3 trips against u, 2 of which we are dead certs to win and another which it is most likely we will win, it seems when u play organised teams you struggle, until of course u add them to ur ignore list to make sure they cant play any more of ur games.

you attacked me at the start of the game several times. not at the end where the other team finished me off. look at the game log and stop posting what you want everyone to read. POST THE FACTS.

struggle? you beat me with 2 players of low rank on my team. How about I set up a real match against you and your so called leet friends? and the last time I checked, my wining percentage is only 66%. 1,000 pardons for not beating you every game.

POST THE FACTS NOOB

[alex_white101]

you attacked me at the start of the game several times. not at the end where the other team finished me off. look at the game log and stop posting what you want everyone to read. POST THE FACTS.

struggle? you beat me with 2 players of low rank on my team. How about I set up a real match against you and your so called leet friends? and the last time I checked, my wining percentage is only 66%. 1,000 pardons for not beating you every game.

POST THE FACTS NOOB

thats a load of bull****, i attacked u once in the whole game. as i attacked red once in the whole game. i will post all of my turns according to the game log if u wish, i attacked u ONCE the round before you were eliminated. so that not a reason to try and blame me. and 2 players of low rank? u mean one guy on 1400 points (sure thats notnot great but it certainly isnt bad) and a captain, one rank below u. and beat me every time u have not, in fact i have a won more against u than lost. and to set up a real match u would have to take us off ur ingnore list (and us take u off ours) but i dont think u would do that as apparently anyone who beats u goes on there and stays there.

[robbart]

you attacked me at the start of the game several times. not at the end where the other team finished me off. look at the game log and stop posting what you want everyone to read. POST THE FACTS.

struggle? you beat me with 2 players of low rank on my team. How about I set up a real match against you and your so called leet friends? and the last time I checked, my wining percentage is only 66%. 1,000 pardons for not beating you every game.

POST THE FACTS NOOB

thats a load of bull****, i attacked u once in the whole game. as i attacked red once in the whole game. i will post all of my turns according to the game log if u wish, i attacked u ONCE the round before you were eliminated. so that not a reason to try and blame me. and 2 players of low rank? u mean one guy on 1400 points (sure thats notnot great but it certainly isnt bad) and a captain, one rank below u. and beat me every time u have not, in fact i have a won more against u than lost. and to set up a real match u would have to take us off ur ingnore list (and us take u off ours) but i dont think u would do that as apparently anyone who beats u goes on there and stays there.

No offense guys, but could you take this somewhere else?

[Molacole]

you attacked me at the start of the game several times. not at the end where the other team finished me off. look at the game log and stop posting what you want everyone to read. POST THE FACTS.

struggle? you beat me with 2 players of low rank on my team. How about I set up a real match against you and your so called leet friends? and the last time I checked, my wining percentage is only 66%. 1,000 pardons for not beating you every game.

POST THE FACTS NOOB

thats a load of bull****, i attacked u once in the whole game. as i attacked red once in the whole game. i will post all of my turns according to the game log if u wish, i attacked u ONCE the round before you were eliminated. so that not a reason to try and blame me. and 2 players of low rank? u mean one guy on 1400 points (sure thats notnot great but it certainly isnt bad) and a captain, one rank below u. and beat me every time u have not, in fact i have a won more against u than lost. and to set up a real match u would have to take us off ur ingnore list (and us take u off ours) but i dont think u would do that as apparently anyone who beats u goes on there and stays there.

you're missing the point

you should've fortified him if he was low on troops to prevent him from getting eliminated, but instead you made it easier. Attacking his army of 1 probably wasn't the problem at all. The real problem looks like you didn't fortify him...

[alex_white101]

you're missing the point

you should've fortified him if he was low on troops to prevent him from getting eliminated, but instead you made it easier. Attacking his army of 1 probably wasn't the problem at all. The real problem looks like you didn't fortify him...

im not, i know it is not normal to attack partners, however i took a single one of his armies and placed 3 where his one had been, the guy that then ran through him and eliminated him had to go through my 3 armies to get to him and had several left over, therefore no matter whether i had given him the armies or not he would still have been eliminated, simple as that. the best i could have made happen was make the guy that eliminated him have to go through one extra army which wouldnt have made a single bit of difference as he had plenty left over. so how could it possibly be my fault?

[Molacole]

For some reason, in this game, it is more advantageous to play higher ranked opponents, and less so to play lower ranked opponents. Don't oversimplify this be responding with "Duh, higher ranks give more points!" The point is that such a reward system is disproportionate to how likley a high ranked player is to win.

High ranks know this best, as they avoid lower ranked players and even have "high ranks only" games.

As a used-to-be lower rank, there was nothing better than fighting higher ranks, because the value of winning was so great.


My question is, "Is this imbalance purposeful?" Are lower ranked players supposed to be avoided and higher ranked opponents sought after? Or is this system flawed?

yes it causes segregation! It's a double edged sword though. On one side of the blade you have players who set their games up according to rank and the least possible chance of dropping a lot of points in one game. On the other side of the blade you will find that many people have learned it is a lot more fun to play this game with people who know how to play instead of people who think they know how to play.

I've heard a lot of fuss about standard games difficulty and how hard it is to gain rank playing standard so I've been giving it a try lately just to see what it's all about. I played a few games of standard when I first started and found that the win usually wasn't awarded to the best player, but instead awarded to the player who wasn't attacked.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about would be a 4 player game on classic map with 1 player holding oceana and another holding S. America. For the example I'll put the 2 other players into attacking position say siam and one on North africa.

IF
player 1 is on N Africa
player 2 is on siam
player 3 holds S america
player 4 holds oceana

now if player 1 attacks S america he keeps the game balanced and it would probably be his best move...

The problem you get with playing low ranked players is more times than not player 2 will not try to break up the oceana bonus and the advantage goes to player 4 and will more times than not hand the game over.

That is just one example of why it sucks playing low ranked players. It doesn't matter how good you are. The outcome is usually decided by the overall skill level in that game to be played out in a balanced manner instead of one player being in attacking position and not challenging another player and a super power emerging making it impossible to win the game...


The same thing goes for triples and doubles games. Some of the people I play with I can go the whole game without speaking a word in team chat and walk away with an easy win. If I play with low ranked players I find myself constantly wondering and trying to figure out why the hell they made the move they did. It turns into more of a mentoring game when you have to instruct your teammates on the best moves to make because they just flat out do not know...

SO to answer your question the rank next to their name just provides a basic understanding of the persons skill level. You also have to accont for the amount of games they've played and what type of games which is usually too much to be bothered with so many people just drop the games in hopes of finding a worthy teammate or apponents.

It's a headache when you get a noob on your team, but when you play against a bunch of noobs it gives you something to laugh about. The big problem is when people focus on preying on the weak and all that jazz...

[Molacole]

you're missing the point

you should've fortified him if he was low on troops to prevent him from getting eliminated, but instead you made it easier. Attacking his army of 1 probably wasn't the problem at all. The real problem looks like you didn't fortify him...

im not, i know it is not normal to attack partners, however i took a single one of his armies and placed 3 where his one had been, the guy that then ran through him and eliminated him had to go through my 3 armies to get to him and had several left over, therefore no matter whether i had given him the armies or not he would still have been eliminated, simple as that. the best i could have made happen was make the guy that eliminated him have to go through one extra army which wouldnt have made a single bit of difference as he had plenty left over. so how could it possibly be my fault?

I have no idea how the game unfolded. Sometimes all it takes is 1 more army while other times 20 armies wouldn't have helped. All I know is if you had an extra army to put on that spot then you could've put 2 extra armies to protect him if you didn't attack him. WHo knows it might have worked or might not have worked.

[Z00T]

i don't understand why he talks 'segregation' .....

take any game, from football to tennis or even domino's .... there are always new players who want to play the highest ranked ones and that's why there are leagues .... and once a year there is a tournament open to all where you can give your best shot .... but the rest of the time each one plays in his league according to his strenght and position .....

another very annoying thing in playing 'noobs' as a 'high ranked' player is that they all go for the high ranked one in the start, regardless of their own position or strategy (why ????? i don't know .....), which turns the game instead of a 1v1v1v1v1 into a 3 or 4 v 1, and however good you are, that is impossible to beat ......

i join some 'low ranked' games, but only if i'm sure there are only players who already have 'some' experience .....

[Forefall]

So Johnny has nearly HALF of his games with BOTH of this triples partners as captain or above. And in public games, about 2-5% of all players are captains.

If this was truly random, the amount of games where you had 2 triple partners as both captain or above would be about 1%, not 40%.

Regardless, even though I doubt it, perhaps it is first come first serve. But you cannot argue with the fact that your teammates are typically very high ranked (note only the top 200 or so players are captains) whereas your opponents are not.

It is my opinion that playing public triples with high ranked partners, especially ones that you know, is a good way to gain rank.


As to the original post, the problem is a player at 500 is not twice as likely to lose to a 2000 ranked player as a 1000 ranked player. This is probably in part due to player finding ways to improve their rating artifically to their skill (good partner, freestyle abuse, high ranked triple play, only playing against high ranked opponents, etc.) You could reduce the penalty for losing to lower ranked players on a graduated basis. Something like the following:

1000-1000 = 20 (divide by rank difference/5000 + 1) = 20/1.0 = 20
2000-1000 = 40 (divide by rank difference/5000 + 1) = 40/1.2 = 33
4000-1000 = 80 (divide by rank difference/5000 + 1) = 80/1.6 = 50

This is just one of many ways to adjust the rating system, but I think CC could be improved by a rating system that allowed higher ranking players to play against lower ranked players without such a high penalty.

[sully800]

struggle? you beat me with 2 players of low rank on my team. How about I set up a real match against you and your so called leet friends? and the last time I checked, my wining percentage is only 66%. 1,000 pardons for not beating you every game.

POST THE FACTS NOOB

Now now Johnny, I thought it didn't matter who you were playing with or who you were playing against? After all, a triples game is always 50% odds of victory, no matter how you look at it. You should win 50% of your games against alex if you have noobs on your team, or if you have experienced players that you work well with!

All based on...

play 38 trips games vs me. Im positive you wont win 92%. it will be 50-50 which is the exact odds anybody has playing me. the rank does not matter. luck/dice/and the drop are the 3 keys elements. it has nothing to do with whom you play.

3 vs 3 = 50%

no matter how you look at it

Oh, and this is quite amusing as well...

all this BS because I fell asleep and did not drop the game after I saw him join our team. now you know why I drop all those games with you dupa. I dont want a partner under 1800 points on our team. they have no idea how to play or whats going on.

But what happened to not caring who joins and first come first served?

Personally, I keep 50 games on the public games everyday for players to join. I dont care who joins. You will see all different ranks on my team. Nothing is prearranged. first come, first served.

You're quite a character Johnny....It's amazing that you can continue hold such contradictory viewpoints at the same time!

[AAFitz]

For some reason, in this game, it is more advantageous to play higher ranked opponents, and less so to play lower ranked opponents. Don't oversimplify this be responding with "Duh, higher ranks give more points!" The point is that such a reward system is disproportionate to how likley a high ranked player is to win.

High ranks know this best, as they avoid lower ranked players and even have "high ranks only" games.

As a used-to-be lower rank, there was nothing better than fighting higher ranks, because the value of winning was so great.


My question is, "Is this imbalance purposeful?" Are lower ranked players supposed to be avoided and higher ranked opponents sought after? Or is this system flawed?

yes it causes segregation! It's a double edged sword though. On one side of the blade you have players who set their games up according to rank and the least possible chance of dropping a lot of points in one game. On the other side of the blade you will find that many people have learned it is a lot more fun to play this game with people who know how to play instead of people who think they know how to play.

I've heard a lot of fuss about standard games difficulty and how hard it is to gain rank playing standard so I've been giving it a try lately just to see what it's all about. I played a few games of standard when I first started and found that the win usually wasn't awarded to the best player, but instead awarded to the player who wasn't attacked.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about would be a 4 player game on classic map with 1 player holding oceana and another holding S. America. For the example I'll put the 2 other players into attacking position say siam and one on North africa.

IF
player 1 is on N Africa
player 2 is on siam
player 3 holds S america
player 4 holds oceana

now if player 1 attacks S america he keeps the game balanced and it would probably be his best move...

The problem you get with playing low ranked players is more times than not player 2 will not try to break up the oceana bonus and the advantage goes to player 4 and will more times than not hand the game over.

That is just one example of why it sucks playing low ranked players. It doesn't matter how good you are. The outcome is usually decided by the overall skill level in that game to be played out in a balanced manner instead of one player being in attacking position and not challenging another player and a super power emerging making it impossible to win the game...


The same thing goes for triples and doubles games. Some of the people I play with I can go the whole game without speaking a word in team chat and walk away with an easy win. If I play with low ranked players I find myself constantly wondering and trying to figure out why the hell they made the move they did. It turns into more of a mentoring game when you have to instruct your teammates on the best moves to make because they just flat out do not know...

SO to answer your question the rank next to their name just provides a basic understanding of the persons skill level. You also have to accont for the amount of games they've played and what type of games which is usually too much to be bothered with so many people just drop the games in hopes of finding a worthy teammate or apponents.

It's a headache when you get a noob on your team, but when you play against a bunch of noobs it gives you something to laugh about. The big problem is when people focus on preying on the weak and all that jazz...

could you explain what you mean in detail

pot calling kettle black...I know...but its still funny

[comic boy]

struggle? you beat me with 2 players of low rank on my team. How about I set up a real match against you and your so called leet friends? and the last time I checked, my wining percentage is only 66%. 1,000 pardons for not beating you every game.

POST THE FACTS NOOB

Now now Johnny, I thought it didn't matter who you were playing with or who you were playing against? After all, a triples game is always 50% odds of victory, no matter how you look at it. You should win 50% of your games against alex if you have noobs on your team, or if you have experienced players that you work well with!

All based on...

play 38 trips games vs me. Im positive you wont win 92%. it will be 50-50 which is the exact odds anybody has playing me. the rank does not matter. luck/dice/and the drop are the 3 keys elements. it has nothing to do with whom you play.

3 vs 3 = 50%

no matter how you look at it

Oh, and this is quite amusing as well...

all this BS because I fell asleep and did not drop the game after I saw him join our team. now you know why I drop all those games with you dupa. I dont want a partner under 1800 points on our team. they have no idea how to play or whats going on.

But what happened to not caring who joins and first come first served?

Personally, I keep 50 games on the public games everyday for players to join. I dont care who joins. You will see all different ranks on my team. Nothing is prearranged. first come, first served.

You're quite a character Johnny....It's amazing that you can continue hold such contradictory viewpoints at the same time!

You would think he would get embarassed when constantly caught writing gibberish but some people have an incredibly inflated opinion of themselves I guess

[Molacole]

I tend to ramble when I have a point. Sometimes I get to it and other times I just keep rambling!

[gingis khan]

regarding segregation... the very reason i stuck with this club is the reason that it is soooo hard to get a rank and sooo easy to lose it . be a man and get places , and then , be a man and hold it. every elite player choses games at his own will (according to his own interest-as he/she sees it). once you get there , you will have your own set of rules , right? i dream of testing my skills against some legends (johnnie rocket was a synonim for a "legend" since i was a rookie) but my well homebringing do not allow me to even ask such stupid thing. once i am there with them , i'll be (hopefully) a synonim for a legend to some new group of rookies. and God help me be a man about it!!!! segregation IS in our nature.

[hulmey]

I will play anybody and at anytime. If your good then your good. For example playing noobs or lower ranked players is good because they are more easily manipulated because they listen to the higher ranked player. Also they are very easy to read and is some1 deadbeats us it to ur advantage!!!

Higher ranked players you get more points and have a good strong and entertaining game.

Theres always 2 sidees to a coin peeeps

[Ham]

all this BS because I fell asleep and did not drop the game after I saw him join our team. now you know why I drop all those games with you dupa. I dont want a partner under 1800 points on our team. they have no idea how to play or whats going on.

Damn man. I guess that people like wacicha and glide must not know how to play.

I used to have some respect for you.

[sully800]

To be fair to Johnny, that quote is from a while ago. I understand that he may no longer drop games when he gets low ranking partners. I have no proof that its true other than he said games are open for everyone to play and join. So perhaps he just changed his mind and I slandered him by quoting two different time periods.

But its all in good fun Johnny....I really do think you are an exceptional player, just a bit galling in the forum

[Uncle Death]

I'm a relatively new player and a first time poster, so naturally I think I'm as smart or smarter than all of you, so forgive me. I have looked for games with higher ranked opponents for 2 reasons. I want more points and I want to learn to be a better player. I think it's perfectly natural for people to try and protect their rank. I think the segregation should be based on numbers of games played. Once I've played enough games to show I'm serious and not a jerkoff who will be unreliable or screw up games, I want to play better players. If what I've read in this thread is correct and the best players are all playing private and team games, then the ranks are meaningless anyway and should be done away with. If I am never going to get a chance to play at least one game with one of the top players, then that's a little disappointing.

[alex_white101]

struggle? you beat me with 2 players of low rank on my team. How about I set up a real match against you and your so called leet friends? and the last time I checked, my wining percentage is only 66%. 1,000 pardons for not beating you every game.

POST THE FACTS NOOB

Now now Johnny, I thought it didn't matter who you were playing with or who you were playing against? After all, a triples game is always 50% odds of victory, no matter how you look at it. You should win 50% of your games against alex if you have noobs on your team, or if you have experienced players that you work well with!

All based on...

play 38 trips games vs me. Im positive you wont win 92%. it will be 50-50 which is the exact odds anybody has playing me. the rank does not matter. luck/dice/and the drop are the 3 keys elements. it has nothing to do with whom you play.

3 vs 3 = 50%

no matter how you look at it

haha exactly! the odds are always 50% that is ridiculous. the odds dramatically change when you have an organised team, for example i organised a team (me lt.pie and sky T to play against you JR) and in the 4 games we played you we won 3, whereas when i jioned randomly and hoped for a good team i won 2 out of 3. the odds do change.

[AAFitz]

I'm a relatively new player and a first time poster, so naturally I think I'm as smart or smarter than all of you, so forgive me. I have looked for games with higher ranked opponents for 2 reasons. I want more points and I want to learn to be a better player. I think it's perfectly natural for people to try and protect their rank. I think the segregation should be based on numbers of games played. Once I've played enough games to show I'm serious and not a jerkoff who will be unreliable or screw up games, I want to play better players. If what I've read in this thread is correct and the best players are all playing private and team games, then the ranks are meaningless anyway and should be done away with. If I am never going to get a chance to play at least one game with one of the top players, then that's a little disappointing.

it is nice to see a nice player with some common sense. And, who realizes all they have to do to play some higher ranks, is to get a higher rank. Also, many higher ranks will play if you just ask....you can set up privates with many...most dont understand this...but asking them to set up open games so that negative players, multis, etc can join is just too much to ask...I imagine there are many lower ranked players that only play private games too to avoid the same thing.

Anyone who goes out of their way to complain about what games someone else plays is just crazy and jealous...ive played 1600 or so games...ive played doubles or trips against many if not most of the top players, have played with or against them, but even I have not played many in singles...my score even at its peak of 2600 was not really high enough to justify a game with players that had 3500 or so...and it never would have occurred to me to even ask, because even though most would probably say yes...it wasnt really fair to them...

[Robinette]

I'm a relatively new player and a first time poster, so naturally I think I'm as smart or smarter than all of you, so forgive me. I have looked for games with higher ranked opponents for 2 reasons. I want more points and I want to learn to be a better player. I think it's perfectly natural for people to try and protect their rank. I think the segregation should be based on numbers of games played. Once I've played enough games to show I'm serious and not a jerkoff who will be unreliable or screw up games, I want to play better players. If what I've read in this thread is correct and the best players are all playing private and team games, then the ranks are meaningless anyway and should be done away with. If I am never going to get a chance to play at least one game with one of the top players, then that's a little disappointing.

it is nice to see a nice player with some common sense. And, who realizes all they have to do to play some higher ranks, is to get a higher rank. Also, many higher ranks will play if you just ask....you can set up privates with many...most dont understand this...but asking them to set up open games so that negative players, multis, etc can join is just too much to ask...I imagine there are many lower ranked players that only play private games too to avoid the same thing.

Anyone who goes out of their way to complain about what games someone else plays is just crazy and jealous...ive played 1600 or so games...ive played doubles or trips against many if not most of the top players, have played with or against them, but even I have not played many in singles...my score even at its peak of 2600 was not really high enough to justify a game with players that had 3500 or so...and it never would have occurred to me to even ask, because even though most would probably say yes...it wasnt really fair to them...

Wow... good sense on top of common sense... what a refreshing read!!!

I'll just add that I never even thought of asking the top ranked players to play me when I was lower on the scoreboard... but what I did do was start games and invite the top players that were the same rank as me... if you can learn and consistently beat your peers, you'll soon be at a higher rank... rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat... and viola... top page of the scoreboard you will be.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I'm a relatively new player and a first time poster, so naturally I think I'm as smart or smarter than all of you, so forgive me. I have looked for games with higher ranked opponents for 2 reasons. I want more points and I want to learn to be a better player. I think it's perfectly natural for people to try and protect their rank. I think the segregation should be based on numbers of games played. Once I've played enough games to show I'm serious and not a jerkoff who will be unreliable or screw up games, I want to play better players. If what I've read in this thread is correct and the best players are all playing private and team games, then the ranks are meaningless anyway and should be done away with. If I am never going to get a chance to play at least one game with one of the top players, then that's a little disappointing.

it is nice to see a nice player with some common sense. And, who realizes all they have to do to play some higher ranks, is to get a higher rank. Also, many higher ranks will play if you just ask....you can set up privates with many...most dont understand this...but asking them to set up open games so that negative players, multis, etc can join is just too much to ask...I imagine there are many lower ranked players that only play private games too to avoid the same thing.

Anyone who goes out of their way to complain about what games someone else plays is just crazy and jealous...ive played 1600 or so games...ive played doubles or trips against many if not most of the top players, have played with or against them, but even I have not played many in singles...my score even at its peak of 2600 was not really high enough to justify a game with players that had 3500 or so...and it never would have occurred to me to even ask, because even though most would probably say yes...it wasnt really fair to them...

Wow... good sense on top of common sense... what a refreshing read!!!

I'll just add that I never even thought of asking the top ranked players to play me when I was lower on the scoreboard... but what I did do was start games and invite the top players that were the same rank as me... if you can learn and consistently beat your peers, you'll soon be at a higher rank... rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat... and viola... top page of the scoreboard you will be.

Hi Robinette

how was your trip to Nashville ? I hope you dint suffer that badly.

[Robinette]

Hi Robinette

how was your trip to Nashville ? I hope you dint suffer that badly.

Why are you being nice to me??? It's making me really nervous...

Nashville was cool... the Gaylord Opryland hotel is over the top in a good way... all around good fun, good food, good music, good friends... yes.. it was indeed a great trip.

And now lets get this thread back on topic, shall we...

[hulmey]

played many in singles...my score even at its peak of 2600 was not really high enough to justify a game with players that had 3500 or so...and it never would have occurred to me to even ask, because even though most would probably say yes...it wasnt really fair to them...

What happened all of a sudden AAfitz???

How did you start doing so bad?