Conquer Club

lackattack wrote:I take the integrity of the game quite seriously, and I do care about our members opinions. I don't like it either when our Conqueror gets his points from cheap tactics. We just don't have a solution yet. Once again we spent quite a bit of time this morning discussing farming and ranching during the admin meeting. I've recently made improvements to the anti-farming ban, and there are more measures coming soon to protect new recruits. As king achilles has pointed out many times, it is very tricky to make rules against taking advantage of lower ranks because it is very hard to draw a line between abuse and normal playing. If you have any suggestions on how to enforce a ranching rule in a practical way we would love to hear them. In the meantime I'm looking into changing the join a game pages to show new games first, to discourage ranching, but there are serious issues I need to iron out (i.e. will most games still fill?, what to do with games that never fill?).

By the way, my counterclaim threat was a joke, that website doesn't even exist!

In GLG's last 100 games the average score of the opponents that he faced was 1366....34 points shy of a SFC

I'm fairly certain that the average score of his opponents is much higher than what the average score is amongst the current active players.

I also observed similar ranks for several pages after I stopped adding up the scores of his opponents that he played against in his last 100 games.


obviously this "only plays cooks and cadets" rumor is grossly exaggerated.

So lack....what exactly was/is "cheap" about GLG's "tactics"? What do you consider a low rank to be? Is SFC considered a "low rank" Are the vast majority of the active players on this site "low ranked" players?

Maybe its not really a "rank" thing and it's just a "cheap" thing?

Is it cheap that....

1. He almost exclusively plays private games that he sets up? Not really cheap
2. He almost exclusively plays 1v1's? Not cheap
3. He almost exclusively plays freestyle? Not cheap
4. He primarily plays Mogul, Europa, Waterloo, Bamboo jack, & New World? Not very cheap

I think it's this...

5. He only participates in games in which he believes that he has a high probability of winning in them.

I think it's #5 that has everyone's panties in a wod.

But is this cheap?

Some might think so. While others, most likely those that like to win and climb the scoreboard, probably view this as part of some kind of smart game play strategy that is conducive to winning.

I mean if its your goal to climb the scoreboard is it really a smart Idea to play in games in which you have a low probability of winning in them?

Guess what your win% must be in order to break even after you reach say 3600 points ( a score that 99% of the people here will never reach so I'm not surprised that most of you don't get this)

Ill tell you....its about 80% and guess the frack what your win % needs to be when your score is high enough to where you lose 45 points when you lose against a Colonel?... in this case your win % needs to be over 90%.

example... lets say my score is 4700 and I have a goal to make conqueror and lets say the average rank of my next 10 opponents is lieutenant....

If i win 9 out of 10 (90%) I will net 3 points if I win 8 of 10 (80%) I will lose 56 points

but out of the 16000 active players only 25% of them have a score of lieutenant or higher...good luck finding games

lets bump it up to major (only 10% of the active players have a rank of major or above)....more good luck finding games...

9 out of 10 wins (90%) will net me 30 points
8 out of 10 wins (80%) I will have a net loss of 26 points


How many of you think you could maintain a 90% win rate without using a strategy that gives you an edge?

I can maintain the rank of major with my eyes closed, playing any game type and any setting, without using any strategy whatsoever all while missing many turns... its so fucking easy for me its pathetic, but yet 90% of you will never see the rank of Major.

I can achieve the rank of Colonel with very very little effort....it is infinitely easier to make Colonel than it is to make Brig but yet Brig is cake walk compared to General but yet many Generals have no clue what it takes to get up to 5000 points.

Still 98% of you will NEVER see the rank of Colonel, 99% will never make Brig and 99.9% will never make General and what a whole 20 of us have made Field Marshall? ( there are less field marshals than Conquerors)

Again its no surprise that no one here has a clue (including lack) because 99.9% of you will never be in the position to experience what it takes to maintain a 90% plus win rate.



This is why this crusade that many of you have to bury GLG is so insanely retarded beyond belief... his "edge" is no different than any of the other "edges" that all of the other Conquerors used.

well said

demonfork wrote:

lackattack wrote:I take the integrity of the game quite seriously, and I do care about our members opinions. I don't like it either when our Conqueror gets his points from cheap tactics. We just don't have a solution yet. Once again we spent quite a bit of time this morning discussing farming and ranching during the admin meeting. I've recently made improvements to the anti-farming ban, and there are more measures coming soon to protect new recruits. As king achilles has pointed out many times, it is very tricky to make rules against taking advantage of lower ranks because it is very hard to draw a line between abuse and normal playing. If you have any suggestions on how to enforce a ranching rule in a practical way we would love to hear them. In the meantime I'm looking into changing the join a game pages to show new games first, to discourage ranching, but there are serious issues I need to iron out (i.e. will most games still fill?, what to do with games that never fill?).

By the way, my counterclaim threat was a joke, that website doesn't even exist!

In GLG's last 100 games the average score of the opponents that he faced was 1366....34 points shy of a SFC

I'm fairly certain that the average score of his opponents is much higher than what the average score is amongst the current active players.

I also observed similar ranks for several pages after I stopped adding up the scores of his opponents that he played against in his last 100 games.


obviously this "only plays cooks and cadets" rumor is grossly exaggerated.

So lack....what exactly was/is "cheap" about GLG's "tactics"? What do you consider a low rank to be? Is SFC considered a "low rank" Are the vast majority of the active players on this site "low ranked" players?

Maybe its not really a "rank" thing and it's just a "cheap" thing?

Is it cheap that....

1. He almost exclusively plays private games that he sets up? Not really cheap
2. He almost exclusively plays 1v1's? Not cheap
3. He almost exclusively plays freestyle? Not cheap
4. He primarily plays Mogul, Europa, Waterloo, Bamboo jack, & New World? Not very cheap

I think it's this...

5. He only participates in games in which he believes that he has a high probability of winning in them.

I think it's #5 that has everyone's panties in a wod.

But is this cheap?

Some might think so. While others, most likely those that like to win and climb the scoreboard, probably view this as part of some kind of smart game play strategy that is conducive to winning.

I mean if its your goal to climb the scoreboard is it really a smart Idea to play in games in which you have a low probability of winning in them?

Guess what your win% must be in order to break even after you reach say 3600 points ( a score that 99% of the people here will never reach so I'm not surprised that most of you don't get this)

Ill tell you....its about 80% and guess the frack what your win % needs to be when your score is high enough to where you lose 45 points when you lose against a Colonel?... in this case your win % needs to be over 90%.

example... lets say my score is 4700 and I have a goal to make conqueror and lets say the average rank of my next 10 opponents is lieutenant....

If i win 9 out of 10 (90%) I will net 3 points if I win 8 of 10 (80%) I will lose 56 points

but out of the 16000 active players only 25% of them have a score of lieutenant or higher...good luck finding games

lets bump it up to major (only 10% of the active players have a rank of major or above)....more good luck finding games...

9 out of 10 wins (90%) will net me 30 points
8 out of 10 wins (80%) I will have a net loss of 26 points


How many of you think you could maintain a 90% win rate without using a strategy that gives you an edge?

I can maintain the rank of major with my eyes closed, playing any game type and any setting, without using any strategy whatsoever all while missing many turns... its so fucking easy for me its pathetic, but yet 90% of you will never see the rank of Major.

I can achieve the rank of Colonel with very very little effort....it is infinitely easier to make Colonel than it is to make Brig but yet Brig is cake walk compared to General but yet many Generals have no clue what it takes to get up to 5000 points.

Still 98% of you will NEVER see the rank of Colonel, 99% will never make Brig and 99.9% will never make General and what a whole 20 of us have made Field Marshall? ( there are less field marshals than Conquerors)

Again its no surprise that no one here has a clue (including lack) because 99.9% of you will never be in the position to experience what it takes to maintain a 90% plus win rate.



This is why this crusade that many of you have to bury GLG is so insanely retarded beyond belief... his "edge" is no different than any of the other "edges" that all of the other Conquerors used.

Maybe u should have dug just a little further back, do your stAts then and come back.

hmsps...

Most of what I wrote was obviously beyond you and went over your head... but again not surprised, your highest score is 2784 you have no clue.

Your post is very condescending, demonfork. Even though I haven't been as high a score as you, I am capable of understanding your logic. That bogrolling and a winning % of 90+ is needed to get conqueror is the entire point. It shouldn't be, and changes should be made so that there is a way to reach conqueror without targeting players on a hard map that they have no clue about. I am pretty sure the owner of the game knows how he wishes the conqueror title were earned and probably isn't going to be convinced to change his mind by "you don't get it".

What GLG does is harmful to the game, because he targets players (no matter their score) on a hard map they have never played. He sends his invites to his victims, and won't play anyone who has a chance of beating him. This is discouraging to inexperienced players and an unfair advantage to experienced players. He flaunts what he does with attempted farming user groups and baiting threads coz he loves the drama. He then threatens anyone who has a word to say about it with a report, to get them punished. If he was a conqueror who played his specialty map as public games and kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't be disliked as he is. But maybe it's good that he isn't because the whole issue, as you said, is par for the course and changes should be made and maybe his contribution to the game will be as the instigator of these changes.

Denise wrote:Your post is very condescending, demonfork. Even though I haven't been as high a score as you, I am capable of understanding your logic. That bogrolling and a winning % of 90+ is needed to get conqueror is the entire point. It shouldn't be, and changes should be made so that there is a way to reach conqueror without targeting players on a hard map that they have no clue about. I am pretty sure the owner of the game knows how he wishes the conqueror title were earned and probably isn't going to be convinced to change his mind by "you don't get it".

What GLG does is harmful to the game, because he targets players (no matter their score) on a hard map they have never played. He sends his invites to his victims, and won't play anyone who has a chance of beating him. This is discouraging to inexperienced players and an unfair advantage to experienced players. He flaunts what he does with attempted farming user groups and baiting threads coz he loves the drama. He then threatens anyone who has a word to say about it with a report, to get them punished. If he was a conqueror who played his specialty map as public games and kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't be disliked as he is. But maybe it's good that he isn't because the whole issue is, as you said, par for the course and changes should be made and maybe his contribution to the game will be as the instigator of these changes.

Very well said Denise. See, the thing is, GLG is nothing but a laugh by most people here. His #1 rank is nothing but a joke; he gets zero respect. We all know the Conquerors who are deserving of respect; These were the Conquerors who started whatever type of game for ANYONE to join regardless of rank and all they did was win, climb the scoreboard and maintain Conqueror status or #1 rank. I guarantee GLG would fall at a fast clip if he partook in this type of playing. Meh, we'll never know unfortunately. Sjnap played doubles and triples for any team to join; he was that good that the rank of the opponents made no difference; he raked in the wins. Poo-maker played exclusively 6 player games and again, anyone joined; he won an amazing amount of games to name a couple. The farming today is out of control ever since the invite option started. It occurred back in the day also but clearly, it wasnt as prevalent.

I'd love to see the rank of Conqueror be bestowed on the best player, bar none, one who can take on the top dogs of the site and win, not players who can beat up on the inexperienced players and get 4 points here, 5 points there.

Perhaps if the games were fairer, and the inexperienced players had a more sporting shot at winning, the so-called ranching behavior would be more excusable, but game after game, the chat logs read things like

Newb: thanks for the invite. never saw this board before.
Newb: geez! that game is way beyond me. I better stick withe the more modest maps

or

Newb2: no probs...but you will probably kill me, never played that one before
Newb2: should of known better....did not notice the fog of war...

or

Newb 3: I thought you meant Classic. I have no idea what this is....
Newb 3:I have no idea what the goal is here
Newb 3:I think I'm goinf to quit. I don't like playing things with no clue
Newb 3:Maybe play something more normal later

But fair enough, we do have chat like this:

Newb 4: No prob, thanks for teh invite. new board to me, go easy!!!
Newb 4: OUCH!!!!!
Newb 4: Nice!!! Way to go beating up on the new kid!! Want my lunch money as well??
Newb 4: Nice board, will have to try it agian at some point!
Newb 4: Thanks for the education!! let me know if you want to partner up at some point!!

and this

Former Newb: damn, you got that shop

Map/Settings Specialist: O M G, . .MISTAKENLY try to HELP you by looking at your last gaem. . .and accidentlay join this???
FUG

Former Newb: this is a good one so far

Map/Settings Specialist: i GOTTA quit helping peoplel that REALLY don't need ti
and I WAS NOT trying to join your game

Former Newb: but I needed it :p

Map/Settings Specialist: ;-{{

Former Newb: sowwy

I guess the bottom line here is does ranching help or harm the site? Does it drive players away or make them want to hang around and play more games? If it's the latter, no harm, no foul. But if it's the former, it's a problem that needs to be dealt with.

1) Demonfork does the REAL analysis that other investigators claim to do. thank you sir
2)Denise is wrong on several counts:
->90% win rate is needed due to that scoring system (loser/winnerx20). . .make it closer to 20 and "bogrolling" isn't "required"
-what I do is not harmful to the game; beaten several people that became close CC friends. two of them went on to win 1000 and 2500 pts on a single map -- just to piss them away on other games
-in one report I quoted TWENTY (20) recent opponents that THANKED me
-are you so sure it DISCOURAGES new players? many open their eyes and become more careful -- for 4-6 pts, NOT 20
-GLG doesn't love the drama -- critics do. The problem is a conqueror finally stands up to them, uses rules to quiet them and is funnier than they are
-doesn't threaten anyone that says a word: just when they are overly negative, bait/flame/troll
-wait, so a conqueror has to "keep their mouth shut?" now? what is this, some communist regime?
-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
. . .talk about a drama queen?

3)Codeblue: maybe zero respect because of the lies and exaggerations? I haven't played ANY unranked ? new recruits in years, and not many cooks or cadets in a LONG time. MOST of my opponents have 100-700 games under their belt. I have only 1600.

4)macbone is probably closest to a fair question/statement: are players driven away because of GLG? I don't think so. Many new players want RT games and few high ranks give them what they want -- or talk to them in live chat.

Other:
-the BIG problem is vocal people who don't take a few minutes to talk to someone RT before criticizing. 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.
-it's like sports purists that didn't like minorities playing basketball/baseball/football. Watch Moneyball and maybe you'll understand.

if King Achilles and Lackattack don't carefully read demonfork's post carefully, they are doing CC a disservice. The vocal tail of CC is wagging the dog here.

I think a march madness tournament each year for the conqueror title would be great...have the top 64? players play for conqueror. Work to get there, then battle it out for the title. I think the most negative aspect of these unfortunate discussions are the discussions. Farming, ranching, bogrolling, flippin' stacks, etc....causes so much negativity to be displayed openly and only discourages new(and veteran) players looking in forums at people talking shit at each other. Lets just set up a yearly or bi-annual tourney for conqueror and let all of the extra shit go. No more discussions on it. The conqueror will have worked to qualify for the tourney, and then will have had to fight it out with his peers in order to claim the title. I don't know about you guys, but I am pretty tired of hearing about this subject in post after post after post. Everyone has their things to say, and mostly they just get repeated over and over with only the expletives and choice insults changing from time to time.

Doing it this way, you don't have to complain so much if they want to contribute to the education and introduction of CC to newer players if they so choose. Hopefully the buzz will change from this mess to an actual excitement for an event such as the Conquerors Cup?...

I think that this is something that could potentially eliminate or substantially reduce this issue altogether. Lets work together to fix it. Just trying to keep adding more rules and regulations to try to calm the furor will probably only exacerbate the problem and cause more work and controversy for admin and staff. Change the system. It is a smallish change and could have a largely positive effect.

thanks,

J

demonfork wrote:his "edge" is no different than any of the other "edges" that all of the other Conquerors used.

Not sure anyone has ever argued against this statement. Pretty much all of them have taken heat for cheap tactics.

I'm sure there's a Herpes' trademarked saying that would answer to your OP whine... oh right: sorry about your little butt.

White Buffalo wrote:

Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:->90% win rate is needed due to that scoring system (loser/winnerx20). .

If 90% is needed how come you are '1608 completed, 1309 (81%) won'
and conqueror ?

The point is a 90% win rate is required to maintain it once you obtain such a high rank... doesn't mean his career win percentage has to be 90%. The math works, it's okay.

Swifte wrote:

White Buffalo wrote:

Gen.LeeGettinhed wrote:->90% win rate is needed due to that scoring system (loser/winnerx20). .

If 90% is needed how come you are '1608 completed, 1309 (81%) won'
and conqueror ?

The point is a 90% win rate is required to maintain it once you obtain such a high rank... doesn't mean his career win percentage has to be 90%. The math works, it's okay.

Only because you have to use cheap tactics in order to get to conqueror and stay there due to other people chasing you using similar methods. If the rules and scoring system were adjusted for everyone you wouldn't have this fear anymore.

demonfork wrote:Is it cheap that....

1. He almost exclusively plays private games that he sets up? Not really cheap

Is it sad that I think I laughed harder at the idiocy of your conclusion here than anything else all month?

I like Denise's post, and I think she touches on something important:

Denise wrote:That bogrolling and a winning % of 90+ is needed to get conqueror is the entire point. It shouldn't be, and changes should be made so that there is a way to reach conqueror without targeting players on a hard map that they have no clue about.

Personally, I don't really blame the "ranchers" for doing what they do. As it stands, It isn't against the rules, and it truly is the only way to maintain such a high score. In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game (or, in this case, the scoring-structure).

Most of us understand, Demonfork, that "ranching" is the only way, nowadays, to achieve an astronomical score, and maintain Conqueror. If you want to be at the very top, you need to "ranch."

I agree with you there, Demon. But, I disagree with you in the sense that I believe there is something wrong with "ranching:"
1) From an ethical standpoint: I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain.
2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

These two factors lead me to to the conclusion that there should be, at the very least, a serious consideration of a point system/rule change. Of course, I understand that it wouldn't make things perfect; there will always, no matter what we do, be ways to exploit the points system. However, that does not mean we can't be proactive in trying to limit the ways in which that can be done.

By making it more difficult to "ranch" low-ranked players, whether that be through a scoring-structure change, a rule change, stricter moderation, you name it - we can make CC a better place. "Ranching" may be legal, but it is unethical, and runs counter to the unwritten rule of competitive play... to be the best, you should play and beat the best.

In sports, you don't see a championship team playing against 10 mediocre-to-poor teams to win the trophy; no, you see the (theoretically) two best teams (as close as you can get to that ideal), battling for the crown. This is ideal, and there may be things we can do with CC to help get us closer to it.

Straight-up capitalism, without any government regulations, is harmful to society...
You need a little bit of regulation, to promote equality.
Let's be progressive.

Commander62890 wrote:I like Denise's post, and I think she touches on something important:

Denise wrote:That bogrolling and a winning % of 90+ is needed to get conqueror is the entire point. It shouldn't be, and changes should be made so that there is a way to reach conqueror without targeting players on a hard map that they have no clue about.

Personally, I don't really blame the "ranchers" for doing what they do. As it stands, It isn't against the rules, and it truly is the only way to maintain such a high score. In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game (or, in this case, the scoring-structure).

Most of us understand, Demonfork, that "ranching" is the only way, nowadays, to achieve an astronomical score, and maintain Conqueror. If you want to be at the very top, you need to "ranch."

I agree with you there, Demon. But, I disagree with you in the sense that I believe there is something wrong with "ranching:"
1) From an ethical standpoint: I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain.
2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

These two factors lead me to to the conclusion that there should be, at the very least, a serious consideration of a point system/rule change. Of course, I understand that it wouldn't make things perfect; there will always, no matter what we do, be ways to exploit the points system. However, that does not mean we can't be proactive in trying to limit the ways in which that can be done.

By making it more difficult to "ranch" low-ranked players, whether that be through a scoring-structure change, a rule change, stricter moderation, you name it - we can make CC a better place. "Ranching" may be legal, but it is unethical, and runs counter to the unwritten rule of competitive play... to be the best, you should play and beat the best.

In sports, you don't see a championship team playing against 10 mediocre-to-poor teams to win the trophy; no, you see the (theoretically) two best teams (as close as you can get to that ideal), battling for the crown. This is ideal, and there may be things we can do with CC to help get us closer to it.

All morning I was thinking I should post in this thread, but I was too lazy to write a full response and I didn't want to jump in with a half-assed response. Now I see Commander has made all the points that I wanted to make, and made them very well, so I'm spared the effort...

Thank you, Commander, for a very coherent and balanced summary of the situation!

GLG likes to make long long posts and respond in turn to every one of his detractors. This spurs his haters on, if he maintained a mucher lower profile he probably wouldn't be having so much crap thrown his way like former conquerors who have used similar strategies to reach the top.

I was also trying to come up with the right wording and tried, so that it would be clear and positive. Commander has done it, thanks . So this is were we are with current scoreboard it's broken and needs a fix. Solution is the problem ???

86

Well said Commander62890. I can't understand how anybody can possibly see this so called ranching as anything other than unethical & poor gamesmanship.

Lee is certainly the Maestro of Private Speed Games he creates,
free styling 5 minute turns on a foggy Mogul Map.

nagerous wrote:GLG likes to make long long posts and respond in turn to every one of his detractors. This spurs his haters on, if he maintained a mucher lower profile he probably wouldn't be having so much crap thrown his way like former conquerors who have used similar strategies to reach the top.

Exactly. He brings much dissension upon himself. It's probably mostly a "look at me I'm the conqueror" thing.

He has every right to play the games he enjoys and pays to play as long as it is allowed by the rules. He also immensely enjoys throwing his schemes in the CC waters and trolling it.

Commander62890 wrote:I like Denise's post, and I think she touches on something important:

Denise wrote:That bogrolling and a winning % of 90+ is needed to get conqueror is the entire point. It shouldn't be, and changes should be made so that there is a way to reach conqueror without targeting players on a hard map that they have no clue about.

Personally, I don't really blame the "ranchers" for doing what they do. As it stands, It isn't against the rules, and it truly is the only way to maintain such a high score. In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game (or, in this case, the scoring-structure).

Most of us understand, Demonfork, that "ranching" is the only way, nowadays, to achieve an astronomical score, and maintain Conqueror. If you want to be at the very top, you need to "ranch."

I agree with you there, Demon. But, I disagree with you in the sense that I believe there is something wrong with "ranching:"
1) From an ethical standpoint: I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain.
2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

These two factors lead me to to the conclusion that there should be, at the very least, a serious consideration of a point system/rule change. Of course, I understand that it wouldn't make things perfect; there will always, no matter what we do, be ways to exploit the points system. However, that does not mean we can't be proactive in trying to limit the ways in which that can be done.

By making it more difficult to "ranch" low-ranked players, whether that be through a scoring-structure change, a rule change, stricter moderation, you name it - we can make CC a better place. "Ranching" may be legal, but it is unethical, and runs counter to the unwritten rule of competitive play... to be the best, you should play and beat the best.

In sports, you don't see a championship team playing against 10 mediocre-to-poor teams to win the trophy; no, you see the (theoretically) two best teams (as close as you can get to that ideal), battling for the crown. This is ideal, and there may be things we can do with CC to help get us closer to it.

Straight-up capitalism, without any government regulations, is harmful to society...
You need a little bit of regulation, to promote equality.
Let's be progressive.

While i agree with the vast majority of your post...in the element that something needs to be done to make the conqueror spot a little more than just ranching, the analogy doesnt really apply.

The problem is two fold though really both stem from the same issue. With the vast variety of settings/map combinations cc is not really one sport but more of sports as a whole. This creates 2 problems

1) you can be the best in one setting freestyle 8 man escalating games but not very good in sequential team games. How then do you compare 2 people who are each 4500 with these settings? If to get to conqueror means playing the best how do these two players play vs each other while still playing the settings they are best on?
2) What happens when someone is really good at sequential team games but loves ass doodles...their score goes down. However then later when you play them in a team game where they should be ranked colonel...they are instead ranked a Sargent. This is a completely separate issue to the same exact problem. The rank system is broken primary because not everyone plays for rank, and secondarily because there are ranchers. The primary is far more prevalent and yet it never gets any press...only the ranchers do. This has always been rather interesting to me as while maybe 20 players ever ranch at one time there are 100's who play the settings they find fun even if they know they are not their best settings.

I agree that something needs to be done about the current situation...though i think demonfork has made some important points in his op if you guys choose to accept them or not. We must remember that any action taken will have ramifications that most will not take the time to look at and see. I for one do not want a system that restricts the ability for one to play the games they enjoy whatever those games are and for whatever the reason. Ranching as it has recently been called will always just be the next loophole in scoreboard manipulation. While we can slowly legislate against it each time a new rule is passed it takes the fun out of a game for a few unintended people.

To me change that should be made is not a drastic one...but rather simple. Make it against the rules to systematically target lower ranked players in a few different manners
1) private games in which you invite them
2) joining the games of lower ranked players consistently
3) foeing those who beat you consistently with no just cause

Now i dont think the lower ranked should be a set rank but say 6-7 ranks below you. If you are conqueror you can play as as many of the above games vs captains-majors + as you would like while if you are a brig...the same applies for anything corporals or above.

It may seem rather insignificant to some but i think the line of hosting public games that anyone can join as opposed to these forms of rank manipulation above is one that makes a huge difference. As long as you are allowing anyone to join the games other good players have the option if they want to join or not and if they dont want to join generally that means you are good enough to beat them if they do. Why else would they avoid joining a game in which they stand to win more points than they would lose?

Excellent post, Demon. The true issue is what the Conqueror title is supposed to mean. As it currently is, "conqueror" means the person on this site who is able to accumulate the most points based on the point system as it is. Nothing more. However, most people want the conqueror to be the "best" player on this site and can't seem to reconcile the difference between the two.

Say, for example, that one day Chariot of Fire decided to say f*ck it and farmed his way to conqueror. While a few people might have things to say, most wouldn't because CoF has established himself as one of the best players on this site. Most would feel that CoF "deserved" to be a conqueror, regardless of how he got there.

Whereas with GLG, you have the following issue:

demonfork wrote:I can maintain the rank of major with my eyes closed, playing any game type and any setting, without using any strategy whatsoever all while missing many turns... its so fucking easy for me its pathetic...

I agree and feel the same way.

demonfork wrote:In GLG's last 100 games the average score of the opponents that he faced was 1366....34 points shy of a SFC

So if we understand that it's possible to maintain 2000 points while comatose, you have to make certain assumptions about somebody with a score around 1366. That is GLG's choice of opposition and this is why he gets no e-respect. With almost every previous conqueror, you could say that they were one of the best at standard esc, or freestyle, or team games. If they farmed to get from 3500 to conqueror, you could rationalize it as just a means to an end, but you could not deny that they had "skill" at CC. GLG has not established such skill and that's why he's getting more hate than any of the previous conquerors. It'd be like if they gave Andy Kaufman an Olympic gold medal for wrestling.

HOWEVER, being conqueror is not a matter or skill, or being the best, or respect, or any of that. It's a matter of who has the most points. That's it. While I personally would not acquire points the way that GLG does, he is merely operating within the system and the rules using the tools that he is given. If you really take such issue with GLG's status as conqueror, your beef should be with the system that allows him to do so.

On a more serious note, I read your entire post and saw no mention of your grandmother's boobs. It ruined my morning.

Commander62890 wrote:In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game (or, in this case, the scoring-structure).

Exactly.

i have kept out but am feed up of reading all this about his last 100 games

lol the last 100 games please don't try to make this sound ok... GlG has been in kort for a few months now proberly since the last 100 games... Kort training and clan games are proberly the games that have got his average opponant score up to 1364 or whatever.. take all the kort clan or kort team games away then give us a average opponant score.

Commander62890 wrote:I agree with you there, Demon. But, I disagree with you in the sense that I believe there is something wrong with "ranching:"
1) From an ethical standpoint: I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain.
2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

These two factors lead me to to the conclusion that there should be, at the very least, a serious consideration of a point system/rule change. ...

By making it more difficult to "ranch" low-ranked players, whether that be through a scoring-structure change, a rule change, stricter moderation, you name it - we can make CC a better place. "Ranching" may be legal, but it is unethical, and runs counter to the unwritten rule of competitive play... to be the best, you should play and beat the best.

In sports, you don't see a championship team playing against 10 mediocre-to-poor teams to win the trophy; no, you see the (theoretically) two best teams (as close as you can get to that ideal), battling for the crown. This is ideal, and there may be things we can do with CC to help get us closer to it.

Straight-up capitalism, without any government regulations, is harmful to society...
You need a little bit of regulation, to promote equality.
Let's be progressive.

In Defense of Bogrolling/Ranching:

1) Ethics: "I know it's just a game, but still it's a little unsettling when an experienced player exclusively and systematically exploits the weaker players for personal gain."

My Argument:
When I first joined CC, I voluntarily joined games which had more experienced players. Sure, I was weaker, so I was vaguely "exploited"; however, your claim overlooks that in order for me to improve, I must run through this gauntlet of fire. After being raked through the coals by much tougher competitors, I was forged anew. The bright glow of experience and newly acquired knowledge enabled me to "exploit" weaker and stronger players.

So, there's nothing morally wrong with "exploiting" weaker players for personal gain because the weaker players also gain from the exchange.


Unintended Consequence of your approach:
By imposing costs in order to discourage the most experienced players from playing with weaker players, you would unfortunately restrain the opportunities for the weaker players to learn and develop their skills from some of the most accomplished players on this site. Constraining this path to progress is morally impermissible, my esteemed fellow ConquerClubber. In order to arrive at equality, we must first be forged through the fires of stronger opponents, who may befriend us and teach us the Art of ConquerClubbing.


"2) From a competitive standpoint: In an ideal world, the best players should be the best because they can beat good players consistently, not because they implement the most successful and exploitative system of "ranching."

Again, this claim has been dealt a fatal blow from my above response. Denying the weaker players the opportunity to learn from the best limits total opportunities and their ability to improve.

Additionally, enabling only the best players to play with the best/good players is a restraint of trade which would make any rent-seeking crony capitalist cum in his or her pants. Your proactive approach would make many experienced players impervious to the risk of losing major points to the potentially good, but lower-ranked or inexperienced, players.


Conclusion:
Nay, the fault lays not with capitalism, my friend, but with the presumption of knowledge that progressivists hold dear. They assume that they know what's best for everyone, and they assume that their well-intended reforms would somehow increase social welfare and/or improve equality.

However, the terrible truth is that your model of progressivism merely leads us down the path of diminished opportunities. It vastly constrains our own volition to engage in voluntary exchanges. And finally, it darkens the futures of both the experienced and the young of ConquerClub.


We must ask ourselves:

Shall we support "progressivism"?


or shall we cast away the yoke of tyranny and fight for our