Conquer Club

I was admiring the trophy chests of some players and I noticed that many low ranked players have a respectable amount of medals, myself included. Which made me ask myself if I considered myself a good player.

I concluded that I was not a good player, but rather an experienced one. I don't think I have any remarkable talent or skill at this game, I simply enjoy it and know basic gameplay.

So how about you? Are you a skilled player or simply an experienced one?

I don't think it's possible to be "skilled" at this game. Well, maybe at speed freestyle, but other than that, everything else on this site is either knowledge or luck. I equate knowledge with experience because think about it, you only learn things by doing them and gaining that experience. EVERYONE's good at Classic because everyone has experience on it. There's no skill involved with playing on that map...you either know what you're doing or you don't. Same with my Napoleonic Europe games. Sometimes I'll get people who've never played on it before and will attack Switzerland or some of my territs that aren't relevant whatsoever and then I'll get others who've played it enough to know the basic strategy.

I'm not skilled at speed freestyle at all, and my slow computer doesn't really help matters so I can't really practice to perfect that skill, so I don't think I'm skilled at all really. I'm just knowledgeable and experienced.

Army of GOD wrote:I'm just knowledgeable and experienced.

At what?

squishyg you have a pretty good gold medal count with as few of games you've played. That at least means you are versatile and that does take strategy and that is improved with experience.

In the poll/question "skilled" should probably be replaced by "strategic". Skill I think would be more applicable to free style speed. Maybe.

jefjef wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I'm just knowledgeable and experienced.

At what?

Knowing how to kick your ass and experienced in doing so.

Army of GOD wrote:

jefjef wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I'm just knowledgeable and experienced.

At what?

Knowing how to kick your ass and experienced in doing so.

Teammate killing is not knowledge. But I spose you could call it an experience.

I'd say there are definitely some maps where certain territories are key and going for them can mean the difference between winning and losing. And some maps require some planning in order to determine the right strategy (Poker Club). Experience won't necessarily give you the ability to spot the possibilities in fog games. Course in sunny games, trying to game the opponent doesn't work.

Interesting question squishy...

I've always considered myself capable of leading a trips team in a high level game (and I do so every once in a while), yet I've played less than 50 trips games in total.

The BpB have always been happy for me to lead team games in clan competitions, though again I have little experience at it.

I would think the win percentage is all. If one chap has played 2,000 trips games and has a 55% win rate and another has played 100 games and has a 70% win rate, I would be more concerned about the 'inexperienced player'...assuming the quality of opposition was equal.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I've never believed that the number of games means much of anything. I wrote my 2.1 strategy guide after about 20 standard games on the map. A couple of years later (and a few more games) I don't look back on it and think "that's all bollocks". I still stand by the words I wrote then.

So I think it is all about skill. I don't follow Fc's orders because he has played more games than me. I follow them because I believe he is inherently more skillful than me at trips.

As a further example, when judging the ability of standard no cards players i look purely at the win percentage/eq. Stat and basically ignore the number of games. I have seen many a 30 game sergeant/lieutenant playing excellently. And that skill is reflected in the win percentage...35 to 45% equalling a genuiney dangerous opponent at that style.

However, while the number of games means little to me, the more games you play at a specific style should result in increased skill.

I am experiance, and only partly skilled i think,. still have loads to learn, i'll admit that, sill i placed skill over experienced. As most of what I learned came from the first few games, so it is with new maps. it is rare that i see a new strategy i did not think off in the the first 5 games on a new map.

I think most of my "skill" comes from experience and experience alone. I'm not one to learn a map instantly and rock it right away. I play it over and over and develop skill (which really is experience) on each map (unless they are standard gameplay).

Because I'm so experienced now, I pick up new maps, tactics, gametypes etc, a lot faster then I used to.
When I look back on when I started here on CC, I was a complete and utter noob.

I'd say I'm 90% experienced and 10% skilled

I have a counter-question... What is skill in CC?

I don't think I'm skilled in game play. In that aspect of CC, I'm probably just experienced. But for the rest of CC's facets, maybe I'm semi-skilled!?


--Andy

White Moose wrote:What is skill in CC?

I think this is a good question.

To me, CC skill is the ability to "read" the board, plan out a strategy longer than just your move, and accurately predict opponents' moves to the point of being able to set up a counter before they even enact their plan.

Measuring a player's skill based on their stats is inaccurate at best. I would agree with MrC that win % is the best indication of a player's skill, but that can't be completely trusted. The most skilled player ever to play CC could theoretically have never won a roll and have a win percentage of 0. I think the only real way to measure a player's skill is to play several games either with or against them and simply "know" how skilled they are.

well sometime skill and experiece whas defeated by shit luck with dices.

Master Fenrir wrote:

White Moose wrote:What is skill in CC?

I think this is a good question.

To me, CC skill is the ability to "read" the board, plan out a strategy longer than just your move, and accurately predict opponents' moves to the point of being able to set up a counter before they even enact their plan.

Measuring a player's skill based on their stats is inaccurate at best. I would agree with MrC that win % is the best indication of a player's skill, but that can't be completely trusted. The most skilled player ever to play CC could theoretically have never won a roll and have a win percentage of 0. I think the only real way to measure a player's skill is to play several games either with or against them and simply "know" how skilled they are.

I'm never keen on arguments being justified on the basis of extremes. Yes, it statistically conceivable that a player could never win a role, however experience teaches us that never in fact happens. Just to be perfectly clear about this, I would say that the win percentage (when also taking into account EQ and even warped EQ...for this is not a simple thing) simply doesn't lie, and it is how I measure skill.

I do however like your point regarding the only way to truly tell if somone is good or not is by playing them, if only because it is good to try and play the best on the site. Yet, it is possible to play a great player on an off-day (or much longer)...players go through periods of playing badly. If I played a player known to be top class in a 3 game series, and beat them soundly, I wouldn't then assume they were rubbish...I would just think they were rubbish against me.

Medals measure experience while win percentage measures skill.

However,

Does experience = skill?

I don't think so.

Do I check my opponents medals before playing them?

Never.

Medals are absolutely no indication of skill. Instead they are a token of perseverance, if anything. Especially mapmaker's medals, the amount of effort that goes into each of those maps is amazing.

I unfortunately am definitely a 95% experience player. And win % is highly misleading unless you segregate team games out. Anyone who plays 6-8 player escalating is very good indeed if they win even 25% of their games.

danryan wrote:Medals are absolutely no indication of skill. Instead they are a token of perseverance, if anything. Especially mapmaker's medals, the amount of effort that goes into each of those maps is amazing.

I unfortunately am definitely a 95% experience player. And win % is highly misleading unless you segregate team games out. Anyone who plays 6-8 player escalating is very good indeed if they win even 25% of their games.

Of course you have to consider the win % with regards to the style of game. 25% is indeed very good for 6-8 man escalating, 45% is similarly good for 6-8 man no cards.

i would say experience on most maps and skill on some maps (although it can be argued that is from experience aswell).
when i just came to the site i learnt feudal war by bogangod among some others and i have thousands of games on the map. when ww2 poland came it took me 2-3 games to get the strategy that works best for me and that gives me a high win % on that map.. and i think that is skill, but also the strategy has been perfected over a few hundred games up until today so i guess that also counts to experience..
and without the experience of all my feudal war games i doubt my strategy on ww2 poland would be what it is (maybe it would evolve into it after time but hardy after 3-4 games)..

i do look at how many games someone has played combined with win% and often maprank my opponent on the map where i am facing them (i dont bother to do this in 6player singles but there i rather check games played and win% and form an oppinion based on that, but that is often enough accurate as i play esc games when i play these settings).
names i recognize will be treated with a higher degree of respect (in terms of if they are the biggest threat not in terms of politeness) than names i have never seen before and so on..

/

im both. i can maintain the rank of major goofing around. if i wanted to i could get to connel.

I want to tap on the medals part of the conversation. I'll admit that I collect medals, it gives me something to do on this site. Obviously they don't require skill, you could have a below average win % and still get a medal. However, they ofc do show experience as the OP said, so they can be useful for certain things.

For example, a guy asked to be considered for tsm. The had a decent score, but then I saw that he had no team medals, not even bronze. That means less than 20 ud's for each setting, dubs, trips and quads. So I looked closer and seen he hadn't played any. So medals can give you a quick snapshot of someone's experience, but as other posters have said, that doesn't tell you if they are good, just that they've played.

I think im pretty skilled in some settings that I like. I have a 21% winning percentage on 8 player escalating games, thats far more then the 12,5% that would be average.
In the end of 2010 I just wanted to become colonel just to show I could, I did it specialising on 1 map (Kings Cort, 40 games 78% win) and I became Colonel within a week. I just found it very boring to play just 1 map and setting, so i quited it (who knows what rank i would have had now if i kept specialising on 1 map, setting)

Therefor, yes, I think im pretty skilled on some points.

40kguy wrote:if i wanted to i could get to kennel.

Typo fixed.

Anyway, I propose we coin a new term to describe ability on various CC maps:

Experienskill.

The way I see it, experience can help you in some situations, while some situations require skill... and a lot of it depends on map, gametype and the phase of the moon, so I say we are just going to stop humping around and combine these factors into a 2-dimensional complex field and call it Experienskill.

It's a very descriptive term, plus it has that nice scandinavian ring to it. It rolls of the tongue.

I'm on my laptop now so I can't draw a diagram, but picture in your mind's eye a nice little grid where the vertical axis is labeled "experience", the horizontal axis is labeled "skill" and a diagonal arrow pointing northeast which is labeled "experienskill".

T-shirts with the text "Are you Experienskilled?" will be available for sale at the low price of 9,99.

If it where about skill folks would not need to use doubles and triples games to pad their games in fear of losing points.

Until I see someone rise to the top 10, heck lets make it 100 by playing solo I beleive the game is about playing what you are familiar with and hoping you have good dice.

40kguy wrote:im both. i can maintain the rank of major goofing around. if i wanted to i could get to connel.

to be skilled you need to be able to easily get and hold the rank of Colonel and also be able to get to or close to general when trying hard.

you have only made it to Colonel once and you did not stay there for long

i'd say you are experienced as you have played over 5000k games but skill i think you far off on that one

Georgerx7di wrote:I want to tap on the medals part of the conversation. I'll admit that I collect medals, it gives me something to do on this site. Obviously they don't require skill, you could have a below average win % and still get a medal. However, they ofc do show experience as the OP said, so they can be useful for certain things.

For example, a guy asked to be considered for tsm. The had a decent score, but then I saw that he had no team medals, not even bronze. That means less than 20 ud's for each setting, dubs, trips and quads. So I looked closer and seen he hadn't played any. So medals can give you a quick snapshot of someone's experience, but as other posters have said, that doesn't tell you if they are good, just that they've played.

Did you snub the guy?

When I joined KORT, I had:

dubs - bronze medal
triples - no medal
quads - never played a quads game before

Iron Butterfly wrote:If it where about skill folks would not need to use doubles and triples games to pad their games in fear of losing points.

Until I see someone rise to the top 10, heck lets make it 100 by playing solo I beleive the game is about playing what you are familiar with and hoping you have good dice.

7 Kiron 4288 357 168 (47%) General 7 4.6 Canada
10 xiangwang 4045 120 61 (51%) Colonel 4 4.6 Canada
14 dvlajko 3924 631 204 (32%) General 11 4.9 Serbia
23 Kole 3641 153 52 (34%) Brigadier 3 4.8 Serbia

Rodion wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:I want to tap on the medals part of the conversation. I'll admit that I collect medals, it gives me something to do on this site. Obviously they don't require skill, you could have a below average win % and still get a medal. However, they ofc do show experience as the OP said, so they can be useful for certain things.

For example, a guy asked to be considered for tsm. The had a decent score, but then I saw that he had no team medals, not even bronze. That means less than 20 ud's for each setting, dubs, trips and quads. So I looked closer and seen he hadn't played any. So medals can give you a quick snapshot of someone's experience, but as other posters have said, that doesn't tell you if they are good, just that they've played.

Did you snub the guy?

When I joined KORT, I had:

dubs - bronze medal
triples - no medal
quads - never played a quads game before

WOW!

You were quite the catch, Rodion! KoRT snagged you at a time when you had hardly played trips or quads? Impressive!

Rodion wrote:

Iron Butterfly wrote:If it where about skill folks would not need to use doubles and triples games to pad their games in fear of losing points.

Until I see someone rise to the top 10, heck lets make it 100 by playing solo I beleive the game is about playing what you are familiar with and hoping you have good dice.

7 Kiron 4288 357 168 (47%) General 7 4.6 Canada
10 xiangwang 4045 120 61 (51%) Colonel 4 4.6 Canada
14 dvlajko 3924 631 204 (32%) General 11 4.9 Serbia
23 Kole 3641 153 52 (34%) Brigadier 3 4.8 Serbia

Yeah, that's bullshit. Iron Butterfly has no idea what he's talking about.

Win percentage doesn't necessarily mean that someone is good, just better than the people they've been playing