Conquer Club

Ok- I've been looking at a few of the threads in the C&A forums recently, and there's been a lot of high ranking players complaining about low ranking players beating them. Or ruining their plans.

Almost always this is preceded by a lot of stuff in chat where the higher ranking player threatens the lower ranking player with punishment, and almost always the higher ranking player throws every accusation in the book at the lower ranking player (multi-abuse and secret diplomacy are common allegations even when a single player is being named- there's no punishment for false accusations, after all- you can always say you misunderstood the form).

The strange thing that I noticed, however, is that most of the players who do this have a history of bullying and abusive behaviour when they feel that they're entitled to a win and a lower ranked player has denied them.

If I was a more cynical man than I am, I might conclude that a lot of the cases that end up in C&A are from bullies who have someone stand up to them, instead of fold and change their tactics to what the bully finds acceptable.

This isn't intended to be a complete set of thoughts, but just an initial set of observations. How do you see it?

Sorry don't see it this way..why ?? Are you being bullied sarge, I hate Bully's let me at them

86

Agent 86 wrote:Sorry don't see it this way..why ?? Are you being bullied sarge, I hate Bully's let me at them

86

I banish ye to the Cone of Silence.



OT:

omg~@! YARFG RGGEEE!!!!

Hm, reading this reminded me of an older topic we had earlier this year... 'Victim Mentality Among CC'ers'.

Then my mind jumped to professional poker, and I remember how a player named Phil Hellmuth use to rant and rave whenever he was beat, but especially if he was beat by someone he deemed high on the noob scale. Perhaps there is a general correlation here.

Random You Tube Example of Phil Hellmuth, though it is pretty tame from others I've come across I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mOl8nR4Ryc

His audible comments:

• "Ha, he [an opponent] called a raise with 10-Jack off suit," he said disdainfully when he himself had Pocket Aces.
• "Ha, oh, so this is how I go out."
• "Two aces before the flop, wowee," as it starts to be clear that he's lost.
• "Ha, well played," as he shakes an opponent hand, throws his hands up in the air, and moves away from the table.
• "10-Jack off suit called and 8-9 called. And they both beat me, it was unbelievable."
• "These are some of the worst players in the entire world over here."

--Andy

It is not about being beat.

It is about bad play in multi player games in my opinion

I may be off topic to this particular subject

I don't care what rank someone is but if they play bad and is screws a game up I will let them know it

Most players to not understand the concept of the cards in an esc multi player game--the cards will ultimately determine the game.

The big problem is when bad players see an early opportunity and think it will propel them in the game--all they really do is ruin the game weather it be by weakening themselves or by weakening someone else.

If they ever learned how to play a real esc game, not only would they be a better player but they would probably enjoy the game more.

mmmmmmmm..this cone of silence really works

Aggh that's better thanks chief..yes sometimes the experienced do get very upset when they get noobed by a noob and can't help themselves from over expressing themselves including expletives

Escalating games can sure be ruined from early stupid moves, but everyone has to learn somewhere. It would be better to provide constructive criticism, but sometimes even that doesn't work..then i can understand many getting mad

86

HighlanderAttack wrote:It is not about being beat.

It is about bad play in multi player games in my opinion

I may be off topic to this particular subject

I don't care what rank someone is but if they play bad and is screws a game up I will let them know it

Most players to not understand the concept of the cards in an esc multi player game--the cards will ultimately determine the game.

The big problem is when bad players see an early opportunity and think it will propel them in the game--all they really do is ruin the game weather it be by weakening themselves or by weakening someone else.

If they ever learned how to play a real esc game, not only would they be a better player but they would probably enjoy the game more.

I have seen HA"s rath at a noob and I think once even directed at myself.

But here is my question when "they don't know how to play" and get yelled at for breaking a bonus it goes something like this. Don't you know how to play escalating cards. But if a bonus is not that important in escalating games why take a bonus in the first place and why get so upset when it gets broken?

And who are these villains?

Symmetry wrote:(multi-abuse and secret diplomacy are common allegations even when a single player is being named- there's no punishment for false accusations, after all- you can always say you misunderstood the form)

This is what I have a problem with. People can just throw accusations out, say "it's a hunch", or "they're playing too fast" or "I'm a farmer, and this n00b beat me on my map, they MUST be a rat-multi-bastard farmer! (oops not farmer, that's ME! LOL)", and while sometimes they do get lucky and catch someone, when it turns out to be a bogus accusation, there is no harm done to the accuser. I'd like to see that revamped, especially when some people have been known to make a habit of such complaints.

(it's been a while since I've hung out in C&A, so maybe this isn't as widespread as it seemed to be in the past, in which case, uh, nevermind, LOOK OVER THERE )

Serbia wrote:

Symmetry wrote:(multi-abuse and secret diplomacy are common allegations even when a single player is being named- there's no punishment for false accusations, after all- you can always say you misunderstood the form)

This is what I have a problem with. People can just throw accusations out, say "it's a hunch", or "they're playing too fast" or "I'm a farmer, and this n00b beat me on my map, they MUST be a rat-multi-bastard farmer! (oops not farmer, that's ME! LOL)", and while sometimes they do get lucky and catch someone, when it turns out to be a bogus accusation, there is no harm done to the accuser. I'd like to see that revamped, especially when some people have been known to make a habit of such complaints.

(it's been a while since I've hung out in C&A, so maybe this isn't as widespread as it seemed to be in the past, in which case, uh, nevermind, LOOK OVER THERE )

Serbia I don't think it is as big a problem as you remember it. I know if someone is constantly making accusations that are not true I have warned them.

Symmetry wrote:Ok- I've been looking at a few of the threads in the C&A forums recently, and there's been a lot of high ranking players complaining about low ranking players beating them. Or ruining their plans.

Almost always this is preceded by a lot of stuff in chat where the higher ranking player threatens the lower ranking player with punishment, and almost always the higher ranking player throws every accusation in the book at the lower ranking player (multi-abuse and secret diplomacy are common allegations even when a single player is being named- there's no punishment for false accusations, after all- you can always say you misunderstood the form).

The strange thing that I noticed, however, is that most of the players who do this have a history of bullying and abusive behaviour when they feel that they're entitled to a win and a lower ranked player has denied them.

If I was a more cynical man than I am, I might conclude that a lot of the cases that end up in C&A are from bullies who have someone stand up to them, instead of fold and change their tactics to what the bully finds acceptable.

This isn't intended to be a complete set of thoughts, but just an initial set of observations. How do you see it?

The problem is twofold.

First, there is a group here who are, i will say "highly competetive". They see the game as sort of "attack in any way to win". I found that idea a lot back when I played freestyle... a lot of people seemed to think they were automatically better, had "the" way to play, etc and anyone who won through different means or who was lower rank and won, was someone they should attack.

Then you have the group that have gotten a lot of success through whatever pattern they follow. Some of these have been classed as "farmers", etc, etc... again, its like one just is not supposed to win. When you do, then there is a bunch of people who want to find out why you "should not have" won.

To end this, CC needs to pay a bit more attention to plain sportsmanship and less attention to making the rankings "fair". That might seem counter-intuitive, but it is my belief that when you have such a wide range of maps, playing types and people, its just impossible to make a truly fair and objective ranking of who wins. What we CAN have is a comparitive, fun, "guess who is on top for now" ranking. That will, of ocurse, measure skill. I am not suggesting that cooks and conquerers are "equal" in skill, but I am saying that the difference between a brigadeer and major or even, sometimes, sergeant, etc. has to do with which maps a person has played, the recent luck they have had and so forth, rather than straight "skill". Only if you are assessing people playing the exact same maps with all the same settings can you assess skill, and even then, only when enough games are played to take out the luck factor (at least 30, maybe more).

I love how some mods think they can bully paying customers and get away with it. Yes, I'm talking about people like good ol' Night Strike.

Sorry to all the good eggs that are out there.

PLAYER57832 wrote:To end this, CC needs to pay a bit more attention to plain sportsmanship and less attention to making the rankings "fair". That might seem counter-intuitive, but it is my belief that when you have such a wide range of maps, playing types and people, its just impossible to make a truly fair and objective ranking of who wins. What we CAN have is a comparitive, fun, "guess who is on top for now" ranking. That will, of ocurse, measure skill. I am not suggesting that cooks and conquerers are "equal" in skill, but I am saying that the difference between a brigadeer and major or even, sometimes, sergeant, etc. has to do with which maps a person has played, the recent luck they have had and so forth, rather than straight "skill". Only if you are assessing people playing the exact same maps with all the same settings can you assess skill, and even then, only when enough games are played to take out the luck factor (at least 30, maybe more).

Put the top 512 players on the scoreboard in a 1v1 tournament. Make every round 50 games and use random map. The winner will be the closest to the best player on CC that there will ever be. Not that many among the top 512 would join such a tournament.....
At least not many on the first page.

Evil Semp wrote:

Serbia wrote:

Symmetry wrote:(multi-abuse and secret diplomacy are common allegations even when a single player is being named- there's no punishment for false accusations, after all- you can always say you misunderstood the form)

This is what I have a problem with. People can just throw accusations out, say "it's a hunch", or "they're playing too fast" or "I'm a farmer, and this n00b beat me on my map, they MUST be a rat-multi-bastard farmer! (oops not farmer, that's ME! LOL)", and while sometimes they do get lucky and catch someone, when it turns out to be a bogus accusation, there is no harm done to the accuser. I'd like to see that revamped, especially when some people have been known to make a habit of such complaints.

(it's been a while since I've hung out in C&A, so maybe this isn't as widespread as it seemed to be in the past, in which case, uh, nevermind, LOOK OVER THERE )

Serbia I don't think it is as big a problem as you remember it. I know if someone is constantly making accusations that are not true I have warned them.

Perhaps I should put this part in the suggestions thread, but it seems to me that a lot of posters basically go without a decent form of defence in the cheating and abuse forum. Suggestion wise, it might be an idea to notify a player that they have a complaint against them so they can argue their side.

While I agree that players who make multiple false accusations are easy to notice, even a single accusation made without warrant can be intimidating, especially for new players, and especially when there is no penalty for making a completely false accusation.

especially when there is no penalty for making a completely false accusation.

This is not an accurate assessment/observation. There are and have been penalties for spurious/vindictive/joke complaints as I'm sure you realize... So it begs the question: Are you trolling?

jefjef wrote:

especially when there is no penalty for making a completely false accusation.

This is not an accurate assessment/observation. There are and have been penalties for spurious/vindictive/joke complaints as I'm sure you realize... So it begs the question: Are you trolling?

Nope, although you make a fair point on the first part of your argument. I'm happy to discuss my arguments and if you raise a fair objection, then I'll concede a point or attempt to back up my original point. Just a discussion, JJ.

When I first joined the site I beat some high ranking players and was subjected to this behavior. The thing was, I was able to use it to entice them to rant against me and some other players being multis and thus rally other players to fight against the high rankers, when they were winning and eventually win the games...that is how you have the last laugh as a new player against these tactics. I loved the game so much I was watching when people would take turns so that I could play faster and get my five games in or whatever it is to get rid of that question mark. Naturally they "thought this made me a multi." I played into this to enrage them. I am friends with some of them now.

Gillipig wrote:Put the top 512 players on the scoreboard in a 1v1 tournament. Make every round 50 games and use random map. The winner will be the closest to the best player on CC that there will ever be. Not that many among the top 512 would join such a tournament.....
At least not many on the first page.

Erm not exactly...

Every thought of all the high rankers who get up there by playing team games? Grated, there are quite a few players who are skilled all around, but there is still a decent number who get up there by farming/playing team games they are assured to win.

QoH wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Put the top 512 players on the scoreboard in a 1v1 tournament. Make every round 50 games and use random map. The winner will be the closest to the best player on CC that there will ever be. Not that many among the top 512 would join such a tournament.....
At least not many on the first page.

Erm not exactly...

Every thought of all the high rankers who get up there by playing team games? Grated, there are quite a few players who are skilled all around, but there is still a decent number who get up there by farming/playing team games they are assured to win.

There's no real way to have more than 3000 points without doing something to manipulate the points in your favor. Be it by farming newbies, low ranks, playing with low ranks in team games, playing against low ranks in team games. Playing speed freestyle on difficult maps or only playing on 1 map etc. No one is just so good that they own anyone on anything at anytime. Random 1v1 with normal settings pretty much remove all the different ways of manipulating your rank. Anyone who comes out on top of that tournament is as good of a cc player as you'll ever find. The only thing that could be done to make it even better is to include more players, but the format is indeed a terrific one to determine the best cc player!

Gillipig wrote:

QoH wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Put the top 512 players on the scoreboard in a 1v1 tournament. Make every round 50 games and use random map. The winner will be the closest to the best player on CC that there will ever be. Not that many among the top 512 would join such a tournament.....
At least not many on the first page.

Erm not exactly...

Every thought of all the high rankers who get up there by playing team games? Grated, there are quite a few players who are skilled all around, but there is still a decent number who get up there by farming/playing team games they are assured to win.

There's no real way to have more than 3000 points without doing something to manipulate the points in your favor. Be it by farming newbies, low ranks, playing with low ranks in team games, playing against low ranks in team games. Playing speed freestyle on difficult maps or only playing on 1 map etc. No one is just so good that they own anyone on anything at anytime. Random 1v1 with normal settings pretty much remove all the different ways of manipulating your rank. Anyone who comes out on top of that tournament is as good of a cc player as you'll ever find. The only thing that could be done to make it even better is to include more players, but the format is indeed a terrific one to determine the best cc player!

1v1 is completely about luck! I'm not even kidding. 1 bad turn and your screwed.

And you say that you can't get over 3000 points with manipulating the system? Completely false. It's hard, not impossible. Look at our current conqueror. Plays quality players in 8p sequential games. Over 4500 points. Also, there are quite a few other who do the same thing with high scores.

I'd join a tournament with the 512 "best players", but I hardly think the winner would be the best player.

One game of 1v1 versus one other player to determine who is better - way too much luck involved in that...You'd have to go best out of 5 or best out of 7 to have any real chance of "knowing" who was better, but its entirely possible that someone could go first in all five games - so no I don't think we could say who is better.

Like almost everyone else on this site I have a favorite map; there are two or three players that I would say are better than me at it. I would also say there odds of beating me on that map are not good if I go first. In larger maps or maps where you start with a number of territories evenly divisible by three its a huge advantage to go first.

The concept of a "best player" is an interesting one, what settings determine it? All settings? Its possible that someone could be the best all around, but not the best under any one setting...

Ive seen plenty of new players bully higher ranks for not knowing how to play as well.

Risk and volleyball are the ultimate blame games. In most settings, no one should ever even be able to win the game, and the game is more often lost than won, meaning there always is someone to blame, which means there will always be someone blaming the other, especially when that blame, is sometimes elusive, and almost always subjective.

rockfist wrote:I'd join a tournament with the 512 "best players", but I hardly think the winner would be the best player.

One game of 1v1 versus one other player to determine who is better - way too much luck involved in that...You'd have to go best out of 5 or best out of 7 to have any real chance of "knowing" who was better, but its entirely possible that someone could go first in all five games - so no I don't think we could say who is better.

Like almost everyone else on this site I have a favorite map; there are two or three players that I would say are better than me at it. I would also say there odds of beating me on that map are not good if I go first. In larger maps or maps where you start with a number of territories evenly divisible by three its a huge advantage to go first.

The concept of a "best player" is an interesting one, what settings determine it? All settings? Its possible that someone could be the best all around, but not the best under any one setting...

Depends upon the settings.

I know a few players that will beat me 90% of the time on some settings. I also know a few I would beat with the same rate.

But your overall point is valid, it just has a massive amount of exceptions. Especially the going first part. If I had to choose going first or getting good dice, Id pick the good dice over bad, almost every time, especially on the bigger maps.

What all 3 of you seem to have ignored is that the tournament I was suggesting would consist of 50 games per round. Meaning the winner would play 8 times 50 games. 400 games to be exact.

Good luck getting people to sign up for 50 game rounds...

AA what I was saying about going first is given reasonable dice. You are probably the best 2.1 player out there, but I'm no slouch, and I think if we played 1v1 on that board if I go first and have reasonable dice it would be hard for you to win. If we played a 15 game series on that board I bet you'd win.