Conquer Club

...... Only play quadruple and triple matches? Is this a way to win many games as you can rely on the other people in your team? I just checked for an example, blitzaholic, and thats all he seems to play these days.

I also played in a quadruples match once against majors etc, and found that they deployed all their men to one player. Needless to say, us 4 newbies got hammered as we didnt follow the same principle.

There are less luck involved in quads and triples because you can generate more troops force on your borders with clever forts and deploys.

There are at least two ways to look at this IMO:
The "Anti-High Rank" View:
The team games that often pop up in Join a Game these games have 1 team where all of the high ranked players belong to the same clan. Most of the time, the opposing team is composed of low ranked players who are not in the same clan (or often, are not in a clan at all). Therefore, the high ranked players have a communication advantage over the other team, as you can assume they have played previous team games with each other before and know what they should be doing right after seeing the board on Round 1. Additionally, notice the settings that the games are created in. They are often Nuclear and/or Freestyle and/or Complex Maps/Maps with Objectives and/or Foggy. These settings can be quite a challenge for a lot of low ranked players, meaning the high ranked players can easily obtain medals and points in a short period of time from steamrolling the opposition (unless they have abysmal dice themselves). Overall, some may see this as a "cheap" way of maintaining rank/points/bragging rights.

The "Pro-High Rank" View:
Compared to team games, it is very difficult to master certain maps (ex.Stalingrad) by playing non-team games on it, unless you encounter a situation where the game stalemates and a significant flexibility in tactics is needed to win. A possible explanation to this is the fact that a player is limited to a one-dimensional view of the map unless they play many times on it, but they could be discouraged when they lose too many points from playing on that map. If you play a lot of team games on that map with your clanmates, you will be able to learn the map better, because as "multiple brains are better than one", you and your teammates are able to see different mechanics to manipulate on the said map to your team's goals and weigh the advantages/disadvantages better. Also, casual team games allow clanmates to practice playing with each other without having to worry about winning/losing a clan war. The experience garnered is valuable in future clan wars.

The real answer, is that they find trips and quads to be the most effective way for them to gain points.

Timminz wrote:The real answer, is that they find trips and quads to be the most effective way for them to gain points.

Sunny, sequential, no spoils, simple maps...high rankers are more than likely to win but it is a fair fight.

Foggy, freestyle, complicated maps...simple farming and even less credit can be given for the win.

I recently found myself farming (on the former settings) and believe me I take no credit whatsoever from those wins...it seems almost impossible to lose to a bunch of uncoordinated cooks. But on those same settings my team was recently challenged by a decent team and it is a good fight...as my settings have no tricks. They are playing well and have every chance of pulling it off.

But if they joined a foggy, complicated madness they would be as vulnerable as the cooks to being wiped...

So trips and quads on complicated maps with fog (and possibly freestyle) is just for the points. Pure farming. Sunny, simple maps, sequential on the other hand often goes that way...but the intention is still to have a fair game, if a good team shows up.

I always want to do an 8-player freestyle lunar war but no one joins those games. I feel I have a pretty good strategy on that map, not the best, but a really good one, and 8-player games can earn the winner a lot of points. But just waiting for them to fill takes so long.

Mr Changsha wrote:Sunny, sequential, no spoils, simple maps...high rankers are more than likely to win
but it is a fair fight.

None of these public games seek a "fair fight" as their intent is predatory and even though a skilled team may occasionally join? Odds are good that the opposition is a miss matched uncoordinated crew of random players.

Mr Changsha wrote:if a good team shows up.

That's a big IF and a skilled team isn't risking much here. If they really wanted a fair fight this team would create a private game and actually challenge other teams to play them.

oVo wrote:[...] their intent is predatory [...]

Just because this isn't intended to be competitive doesn't make it a bad thing. It's simply one nuance of a game where many players worry about win percentages, accumulating points and their position on the scoreboard.

I dont mean to disrespect anyone here, but i thought they did this to earn easy points and ranks with a high percentage win loss ratio.

I myself, find it more fun to play against 7 other people on large maps in a standard game. thats a challenge. no one to rely on but yourself. No tricks. Just manipulation of other players and good tactics.

You might never get to 79% wins, but im happy with my 25% wins, knowing that it was all me

(please note: there are a few doubles wins in there too).

oVo wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:Sunny, sequential, no spoils, simple maps...high rankers are more than likely to win
but it is a fair fight.

None of these public games seek a "fair fight" as their intent is predatory and even though a skilled team may occasionally join? Odds are good that the opposition is a miss matched uncoordinated crew of random players.

Mr Changsha wrote:if a good team shows up.

That's a big IF and a skilled team isn't risking much here. If they really wanted a fair fight this team would create a private game and actually challenge other teams to play them.

oVo wrote:[...] their intent is predatory [...]

Just because this isn't intended to be competitive doesn't make it a bad thing. It's simply one nuance of a game where many players worry about win percentages, accumulating points and their position on the scoreboard.

I decided when I returned to actually start public trips games, rather than join against the obligatory two colonels and a brig. My reason wasn't to make points (frankly I would make points quicker the other way...I've always been good at keeping my teams points spread reasonable), but because I thought it might be fun to try whipping cooks. I'd never done it before.

I was delighted to find that it is indeed extremely enjoyable. Most days one of my chaps will call me up with a "Look! He hit a neutral and then ate his own man!!!" kind of comment...and it really is great to not have to be continuously straining to match-up to teams who know what they are up to. I call it 'hunting', and on the new frontier maps one can wonderfully imagine being the portugese/spanish (whatever they were back in the 15th century) cleansing south america of savages, or in north america we are the british and the french destroying the indians.

As I wrote above, I take no credit for these wins in a gaming sense...one trips win against a top team would mean far more to me than 10 against cooks. However, measured in enjoyment, these hunting games (which I think is a more apt term than farming) are, at least at the moment, more enjoyable to play.

However, I would again reiterate the point that at least on my settings there is the possibility of a good team showing up (as recently happened...admittedly 1/7) and immediately giving us a game. If we were playing fog, crazy map settings there would be almost no possibility at all.

I write this as someone who always made great efforts to play against my peers on various styles. But I wanted to learn why top teams set up trips public games. Was it just to make points? I had always assumed so, but having started to do it myself (though whether I am a 'top player' is probably doubtful) I know I didn't do it to make points, but because I wanted to whip cooks. Maybe other teams primary reason is the simple pleasure of crushing the weak and helpless?

Everybody enjoys the occasional game that they can win without having to think, which is what you can do with public trips/quads scenario the Mr. C ponted out.

General Worth wrote:... No tricks. Just manipulation of other players ....

interesting point of view^^

General Worth wrote:Why do top players only play quadruple and triple matches?

Chicks dig team players.

Mr Changsha wrote:I thought it might be fun...

Fact is I have to agree that's perfect logic. It is nice to play in a looser manner, where every move doesn't require diabolical precision and a simple mistake won't turn the game on it's head.

Some top players also play singles...

Kiron wrote:Some top players also play singles...

or big 8 player games

40kguy wrote:

Kiron wrote:Some top players also play singles...

or big 8 player games

same difference

I'd like to point out that many people are missing the distinction between 'top player' and 'player of high rank'.

ManBungalow wrote:I'd like to point out that many people are missing the distinction between 'top player' and 'player of high rank'.

Correct. Let it be known that I am one of the top 10 players on this site, yet, my rank is relatively low.

This is clearly an effect of the terrible dice I get. If I got average dice, my score would be somewhere between 18000 and 23*10^65 points.

Top Player wrote:Some top players also play singles...

But apparently not sequential where strategy is more important than internet connection speed and reflexes.

This topic again?

Hehe. Ive been on the both sides of the argument. Its about perspective I guess. It comes down to this...

Team work wins these games and takes some of the luck factor out of it. Its about communication and deployment. Anyone is able to join a public game. It also comes down to points. Lets be honest we all play for points. We all hate to lose points. The goal or carrot is to gain points and rank.

Frankly I have found experience to be the best teacher....I do not join public team games unless I know who is on my team and how they play. When I look over games to join I shake my head and wonder when I see single folks join the opposing triples team of high ranking officers.

Its also about diminishing returns. No matter how good a player you are single player games rely more on luck then team games for a variety of reasons. There is also the fact that if an officer joins a low ranked game many times folks will target them. They are targeted not in the spirit of the game and fair play but to take their points and eliminate them early. Lower ranked folks are also notoriously unpredictable.

I use to play open games and not worry about the points or who joined my games. When you lose to a cook, cadet or enlisted it hurts. On the other side there is little to nothing gained by winning solo. I continue to play single player games.

ManBungalow wrote:I'd like to point out that many people are missing the distinction between 'top player' and 'player of high rank'.

Quite true...but it is a matter of perspective. If one has never managed to break say 2,500 then all of the colonels and up would seem like 'top players.'

Of course that isn't so.

For the true 'top player' (and they are currently spread out over various ranks from generals down to stripers) one must look more carefully at win percentages related to style, eq. ratings, are they leading teams, playing independently or under direction etc etc.

From my point of view I would say there are probably about 30-50 top players on this site...players that I know are overall a lot better than me. But their current rank is of course completely irrelevent. What is relevent, is that they would be able to maintain a high score playing games other than the kind of game under discussion here.

Dako wrote:There are less luck involved in quads and triples because you can generate more troops force on your borders with clever forts and deploys.

And to elaborate further, there are countless possible moves with 4 different colors on your team and 4 different enemies to possibly eliminate. With so many possible moves, it takes a good eye to see the "best moves" and also adopt a successful strategy based on these "best moves" available to both your own and the opposing team. A team that does not spend much time analyzing the board or has relatively poor analytical capabilities will generally be crushed by one that does, even if they communicate well.

Btw, I like the point made by Mr Changsha about the joy of "hunting". In my past I always tried to gain points, and I decided to do so by playing against higher ranks. I never tried creaming cooks for pleasure. But I do always enjoy pointing out to my teammates whenever an enemy blunders. And of course I then enjoy pounding them into the ground afterward. So I definitely see the appeal of hunting for the thrill of the kill alone.

Personally I prefer the bigger team games (quads/trips) on big maps because most of my enjoyment is derived from planning the likely course of action over the ensuing seven moves until my turn comes around again. Also rolling 0-6 on a turn doesn't necessarily hand the game to the other side, whereas in 1v1 it invariably does, plus there's not as great an advantage in having first turn in quads as there is in 1v1. So for me personally I just like reducing as many of the luck elements as possible.

Another facet of quads that people often overlook is the forting strategy. Given the average deploy is three men, a normal fort constitutes 40% of troop movement in a turn and is a vital ingredient to long-term success.

Public games? For farmers and (it now transpires) sadists. lol Mr.C - good post mate.

The "Pro-High Rank" View:
Compared to team games, it is very difficult to master certain maps (ex.Stalingrad) by playing non-team games on it, unless you encounter a situation where the game stalemates and a significant flexibility in tactics is needed to win.* A possible explanation to this is the fact that a player is limited to a one-dimensional view of the map unless they play many times on it, but they could be discouraged when they lose too many points from playing on that map. If you play a lot of team games on that map with your clanmates, you will be able to learn the map better, because as "multiple brains are better than one", you and your teammates are able to see different mechanics to manipulate on the said map to your team's goals and weigh the advantages/disadvantages better. Also, casual team games allow clanmates to practice playing with each other without having to worry about winning/losing a clan war. The experience garnered is valuable in future clan wars.[/quote]

* Ehh, what?! The problem with 1v1 is not that you cant understand the map, but that drop and starting plays a very big part.. But even seeing that i have no problem joining public games on waterloo or stalingrad as i know if i go first i will win 90% and if i go 2nd i still have an ok chanse if A) the other player gets bad dice round1 B)the other player makes a mistake in play or forts..

I join these games agains equal-ranks and 1-2 ranks under and i can still maintain rank playing 1v1 (mixed out with teamgames ofcourse).

Other maps where i know my tactic is good enough to go +points agains anyone (usually conquest-maps since drop does not come into play as much as in "normal" maps) i can start 1v1 WW2 poland foggy or feudal foggy games and have an advantage against anyone since i know the maps very well (on feudal there are a 20-something players who are specialists and on ww2 poland maybe 5-10 as of now who play 1v1).

But to come back to what you said its just expressed wrong and i do not belive it. The reason is like dako said, less luck and before all less advantage for the team going 1st compared to the player going 1st in a 1v1 where you SHOULD win unless dice (luck) is bad first rounds..

Teamgames can also be good to minimize your pointsloss if you do like some of the highest ranks on the site and team up with 3 low-ranks to even out the points and then simply tell them what to do..

i think this is a better explanation and i dont feel people should be discouraged to play 1v1 due to that you cant understand the map as well as in teamgames..

/

One thing I think bears mentioning is that public team games are not necessarily a guaranteed win or all about farming.

I know in my clan, when we are trying to learn a map or gain experience on one, we start a bunch of public games.

Playing cooks helps learn the map, but it does very little to help devise a solid strategy. Finding similar high ranks to play isn't always easy - hence starting public games.

Plus, it gets boring playing the same teams over and over. If you start a public quad game, a random clan or a random group of players might join, making it more enjoyable.