Conquer Club

Exceptions to every rule; but make no mistake, THAT IS THE RULE (See title).

CC has decided that the name of the site is flowers and puppyville and that it's not about players playing at the highest levels; and thus they still have not bothered to institute game filters requiring minimum point scores for game starters. As a result, almost nobody from the top 100 ever plays 1v1 (public) games. The one or two who do play a very few games only play on very select maps/settings as to maximize their advantage as to not be free falling on their scores.

And if we count the top 500, a relative few of them play 1v1 public games. And they do so knowing that their score is all too likely to drop and not be reflective of their skills.

The top 100 is not a measure of the top 100 at all. It's a measure of what players are patient enough to play the most boring games. Meanwhile, players who want to play a steady flow of enjoyable games are punished and basically not eligible for the upper echelons.

ViperOverLord wrote:Exceptions to every rule; but make no mistake, THAT IS THE RULE (See title).

CC has decided that the name of the site is flowers and puppyville and that it's not about players playing at the highest levels; and thus they still have not bothered to institute game filters requiring minimum point scores for game starters. As a result, almost nobody from the top 100 ever plays 1v1 (public) games. The one or two who do play a very few games only play on very select maps/settings as to maximize their advantage as to not be free falling on their scores.

And if we count the top 500, a relative few of them play 1v1 public games. And they do so knowing that their score is all too likely to drop and not be reflective of their skills.

The top 100 is not a measure of the top 100 at all. It's a measure of what players are patient enough to play the most boring games. Meanwhile, players who want to play a steady flow of enjoyable games are punished and basically not eligible for the upper echelons.

Well, everything you say is true, but so what?

You want to rise to the top of anything, you have to make sacrifices. I was a pretty good chess player in my youth. I was Champion in my university chess club one year. Maybe I had the potential to be a grandmaster, maybe not. I never found out, because I simply didn't have the drive or the patience to go further. Grandmasters play four hours a day and read and study for six hours a day. There's no way I was sacrificing that much of my life, so I peaked with winning the championship of my university and I let it go at that. Probably haven't played more than 10 times in the 20 years since.

There isn't a game on earth where you can rise to the top without investing hours of grinding and boredom. You wanna excel at blackjack? Canasta? Donkey Kong? World of Warcraft? Beer Pong? You can play any of them for fun and get reasonably good, but you're not going to reach the top echelons without giving up all ideas of fun, putting your nose to the grindstone, studying the game like a science and treating it like a job.

Myself, I play mainly for fun, and I'm not at all troubled by the fact that I'll never be Conqueror.

ViperOverLord wrote:Exceptions to every rule; but make no mistake, THAT IS THE RULE (See title).

CC has decided that the name of the site is flowers and puppyville and that it's not about players playing at the highest levels; and thus they still have not bothered to institute game filters requiring minimum point scores for game starters. As a result, almost nobody from the top 100 ever plays 1v1 (public) games. The one or two who do play a very few games only play on very select maps/settings as to maximize their advantage as to not be free falling on their scores.

And if we count the top 500, a relative few of them play 1v1 public games. And they do so knowing that their score is all too likely to drop and not be reflective of their skills.

The top 100 is not a measure of the top 100 at all. It's a measure of what players are patient enough to play the most boring games. Meanwhile, players who want to play a steady flow of enjoyable games are punished and basically not eligible for the upper echelons.

The top 100 maybe, but imo the top 500 is loaded with people that are willing to play games.

Dukasaur wrote:You want to rise to the top of anything, you have to make sacrifices.

Have you been conditioned to accept this mediocrity? Do you even hear yourself. You'd rather have players who are willing to play the most boring games in very small quantities to be routinely counted as the best players? That is just utter nonsense. The system should not punish 1v1 players like it does.

IcePack wrote:The top 100 maybe, but imo the top 500 is loaded with people that are willing to play games.

You get some players playing 1v1. But even the majority of them are not doing 1v1 at 2600-2900 like they were at lower scores. CC is making people choose between scoring and fun. They should not be mutually exclusive.

ViperOverLord wrote:

IcePack wrote:The top 100 maybe, but imo the top 500 is loaded with people that are willing to play games.

You get some players playing 1v1. But even the majority of them are not doing 1v1 at 2600-2900 like they were at lower scores. CC is making people choose between scoring and fun. They should not be mutually exclusive.

I think we disagree, and now with the advent of poly 1vs1 is even easier to control and score.

One of the problems is members like to vent or bitch about the way things are. Your opinion is justified but now take it a step further. Make a suggestion or support a suggestion like this one http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=213990 in the suggestion forum. Then start venting or bitching about no action being taken on suggestions.

My true passion is weightlifting. When I was reconstructing my squat style, I filmed every set for over a year and watched each rep in slow motion. I read hundreds of articles about it.

I've played against and with some of the very best players on this game and many of them bring that same dedication to this game that I have for weightlifting.

One thing I notice is when I go on a medal quest on this game and load up on a lot of games, my play suffers because I'm trying to "get through" games to get the medal.

rockfist wrote:My true passion is weightlifting. When I was reconstructing my squat style, I filmed every set for over a year and watched each rep in slow motion. I read hundreds of articles about it.

I've played against and with some of the very best players on this game and many of them bring that same dedication to this game that I have for weightlifting.

One thing I notice is when I go on a medal quest on this game and load up on a lot of games, my play suffers because I'm trying to "get through" games to get the medal.

Dukasaur wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Exceptions to every rule; but make no mistake, THAT IS THE RULE (See title).

CC has decided that the name of the site is flowers and puppyville and that it's not about players playing at the highest levels; and thus they still have not bothered to institute game filters requiring minimum point scores for game starters. As a result, almost nobody from the top 100 ever plays 1v1 (public) games. The one or two who do play a very few games only play on very select maps/settings as to maximize their advantage as to not be free falling on their scores.

And if we count the top 500, a relative few of them play 1v1 public games. And they do so knowing that their score is all too likely to drop and not be reflective of their skills.

The top 100 is not a measure of the top 100 at all. It's a measure of what players are patient enough to play the most boring games. Meanwhile, players who want to play a steady flow of enjoyable games are punished and basically not eligible for the upper echelons.

Well, everything you say is true, but so what?

You want to rise to the top of anything, you have to make sacrifices. I was a pretty good chess player in my youth. I was Champion in my university chess club one year. Maybe I had the potential to be a grandmaster, maybe not. I never found out, because I simply didn't have the drive or the patience to go further. Grandmasters play four hours a day and read and study for six hours a day. There's no way I was sacrificing that much of my life, so I peaked with winning the championship of my university and I let it go at that. Probably haven't played more than 10 times in the 20 years since.

There isn't a game on earth where you can rise to the top without investing hours of grinding and boredom. You wanna excel at blackjack? Canasta? Donkey Kong? World of Warcraft? Beer Pong? You can play any of them for fun and get reasonably good, but you're not going to reach the top echelons without giving up all ideas of fun, putting your nose to the grindstone, studying the game like a science and treating it like a job.

Myself, I play mainly for fun, and I'm not at all troubled by the fact that I'll never be Conqueror.

The analogy is not very strong. In chess, a grandmaster will defeat a Class C player virtually every time, and chooses not to play low-ranked players not for fear of losing but because she has better things to do. In Risk, even the top players will have a very hard time getting to even 80-90% win rates on small to medium sized maps in 1v1 just because of how the luck factors in.

I got the analogy.

Some times I think people don't understand what analogies are.

In fact, after some 20 seconds of thinking, I think I enjoy "loose" analogies much more than "rigid" analogies.

While I mostly agree with you that top 100 players do not play a lot of 1vs1. I totally disagree with that stupid non-sense sentence

The top 100 is not a measure of the top 100 at all. It's a measure of what players are patient enough to play the most boring games. Meanwhile, players who want to play a steady flow of enjoyable games are punished and basically not eligible for the upper echelons.

I personally play lot of kind of games and I enjoy all of them. I got my score up fast by playing a specific combination of map/settings which corresponds currently to only 25% of my game load. 75% of my game load is made by any kind of games.

But, well, the fun part. 1vs1 games are not fun. They are a flip of the coin. They are utterly frustrating. I'd say 90% of the people that open a dice thread do it after playing 1vs1 game. Well, this is ofc a subjective thing, I am ready to understand that you find 1vs1 game fun, but don't tell me I am playing boring map, I don't think so.

If I see someone playing exclusively hive, I do think that's ultra boring. He may and or may not think the same than you.
Anyway it's not the case for every top 100 players. For example momopost only play escalating multiplayers on all very "normal" maps.
That's just plain risk. Many players do so.

What random21 and kaskavel did to get the conqueror spot, because I think the people you think of, it's only 2 players among 100, seriously not every top 100 player do that.

Yes ofc, you can not go play tons of 1vs1 game against people with a rank below 2k, that would kill you ranking, but it is not because we cannot that it means we don't have fun. Teams games and multiplayers games are, in my opinion, hundred times more fun than any 1vs1 games.
I did play a lot of 1vs1, I still do even though I ofc try to restrain myself, but if I do it's only because I want to play speed game, and I want them to be fast filled and finished. And I never join 1vs1 24h games, I find them plainly boring, if you find me in a 1vs1 -24h games, it's a tournament game.

I have to agree with Don, 1v1 games are not really fun. Almost all my games are tourney games and clan games. I don't enjoy playing "pick up" games that only count for score.

Playing mainly tournament games there is a lot of 1v1. This makes it almost impossible to keep my score up and means it fluctuates greatly. A 1v1 scoreboard (not poly) would be a great idea.

shoop76 wrote:I have to agree with Don, 1v1 games are not really fun. Almost all my games are tourney games and clan games. I don't enjoy playing "pick up" games that only count for score.

Playing mainly tournament games there is a lot of 1v1. This makes it almost impossible to keep my score up and means it fluctuates greatly. A 1v1 scoreboard (not poly) would be a great idea.

I totally agree, a 1v1 scoreboard would be awesome. Shoop mate, get this in Suggs.

13 Donelladan 3885 11368 5543 (49%) General General 122 4.9 Germany Germany

31 FreeFalling123 3474 7028 4053 (58%) Brigadier Brigadier 66 4.8 United States United States

36 Royal Panda 3369 8273 4529 (55%) Brigadier Brigadier 133 4.9 United States United States

53 schiballs 3223 4699 2461 (52%) Brigadier Brigadier 66 4.9 Indonesia Indonesia

54 rockfist 3222 7787 4411 (57%) Brigadier Brigadier 72 4.8 United States United States

57 jackal31 3215 6358 3655 (57%) Brigadier Brigadier 105 4.9 United States United States

59 JPlo64 3204 5337 2285 (43%) Brigadier Brigadier 68 4.8 United States United States

62 jcstriker 3186 4443 2517 (57%) Brigadier Brigadier 54 4.9 New Zealand New Zealand

63 blockhead15 3175 6648 1605 (24%) Brigadier Brigadier 54 4.8 United States United States

67 dkmaster 3159 4850 2202 (45%) Brigadier Brigadier 63 4.9 Denmark Denmark

71 JCKing 3151 4721 2591 (55%) Brigadier Brigadier 47 4.7 Canada Canada

75 TheProwler 3120 4302 2585 (60%) Brigadier Brigadier 50 4.9 Canada Canada

77 xroads 3112 17647 9116 (52%) Brigadier Brigadier 72 4.8 United States United States

80 sjnap 3103 8625 5934 (69%) Brigadier Brigadier 74 4.8 Netherlands Netherlands

86 pearljamrox2 3053 4447 2386 (54%) Brigadier Brigadier 79 4.9 United States United States

Dont blame the players, blame the system.

I can play a sarg best of 7, and win 6 of them and still loose points on the match.

That is why the top 100 like to play others in the top 200, so they dont get screwed when they loose a game on the drop which invariably happens on 1 vs 1 games often.

Keefie wrote:

shoop76 wrote:I have to agree with Don, 1v1 games are not really fun. Almost all my games are tourney games and clan games. I don't enjoy playing "pick up" games that only count for score.

Playing mainly tournament games there is a lot of 1v1. This makes it almost impossible to keep my score up and means it fluctuates greatly. A 1v1 scoreboard (not poly) would be a great idea.

I totally agree, a 1v1 scoreboard would be awesome. Shoop mate, get this in Suggs.

why? they didn't do a FREESTYLE scoreboard when people complained that freestyle players were always at the top and there was no way to reach them if you stuck to standard or team games (instead, they caved to the complaints and ruined the freestyle community with a rule change). they never did a team scoreboard, despite obvious reasons for one... i don't think it is necessary... i don't think it makes any sense...-Jésus noir

nietzsche wrote:I got the analogy.

Some times I think people don't understand what analogies are.

I know you're mad about being banned from the PL, but really now, there's no sense in taking it out on me.

Dukasaur wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Exceptions to every rule; but make no mistake, THAT IS THE RULE (See title).

CC has decided that the name of the site is flowers and puppyville and that it's not about players playing at the highest levels; and thus they still have not bothered to institute game filters requiring minimum point scores for game starters. As a result, almost nobody from the top 100 ever plays 1v1 (public) games. The one or two who do play a very few games only play on very select maps/settings as to maximize their advantage as to not be free falling on their scores.

And if we count the top 500, a relative few of them play 1v1 public games. And they do so knowing that their score is all too likely to drop and not be reflective of their skills.

The top 100 is not a measure of the top 100 at all. It's a measure of what players are patient enough to play the most boring games. Meanwhile, players who want to play a steady flow of enjoyable games are punished and basically not eligible for the upper echelons.

Well, everything you say is true, but so what?

You want to rise to the top of anything, you have to make sacrifices. I was a pretty good chess player in my youth. I was Champion in my university chess club one year. Maybe I had the potential to be a grandmaster, maybe not. I never found out, because I simply didn't have the drive or the patience to go further. Grandmasters play four hours a day and read and study for six hours a day. There's no way I was sacrificing that much of my life, so I peaked with winning the championship of my university and I let it go at that. Probably haven't played more than 10 times in the 20 years since.

There isn't a game on earth where you can rise to the top without investing hours of grinding and boredom. You wanna excel at blackjack? Canasta? Donkey Kong? World of Warcraft? Beer Pong? You can play any of them for fun and get reasonably good, but you're not going to reach the top echelons without giving up all ideas of fun, putting your nose to the grindstone, studying the game like a science and treating it like a job.

Myself, I play mainly for fun, and I'm not at all troubled by the fact that I'll never be Conqueror.

God, this is a first. Wishing for a like button for a duke of snore post. I must be getting old.

First time I agree with a VOL post

With respect to VOL saying that the top 100 is not the top 100 at all, well some of them may be "specialists" of sorts, but a lot aren't. And to connect that to the fact that they don't play 1v1 games is just a little ridiculous.

I guarantee a lot of the top 100 players are just as good at 1v1s as most others. They just don't like them because they involve so much luck. I mean, if someone is good enough to figure out how to get into the top 100, whether it be by dominating on a complex map/setting, playing 6 man esc classic only, playing all sorts of game types or whatever it is they play, then they can figure out how to play 1v1 games. They aren't exactly brain teasers.

In fact, I could make the argument that it's a good thing that they don't play too many 1v1s. If the top 100 had a lot of players who got there by playing 2 player on maps like classic, alexander's empire, doodle earth, etc. then I think it would just be a list of the top 100 luckiest players.

None of this applies to polymorphic games. They are fantastic, and a better indicator of skill. And I'd venture a guess that a decent number of the top 100 play them, and do so very well.

In summary: if you want to say that the top 100 isn't really the top 100, that's fine. But to argue that there is any connection between that and the rate at which one plays 1v1 games is silly. Yes there are some good players out there who might be good enough to be top 100 players if they cut out the luck-based game types from their load, but don't knock the current top 100 because they don't wanna gamble.

ViperOverLord wrote:Exceptions to every rule; but make no mistake, THAT IS THE RULE (See title).

you know... without poking fun at this or getting into the scoreboard, etc... i would just like to point out that the 1.2 years i spent on the top of the board as Conqueror were very difficult for me... every game was just blown out of proportion, i chose my opponents like i was vetting a CEO for a major corporation... hell, i would drop games if a rank joined that i knew could cost me my Conqueror throne if things went the wrong way... i had long bouts of irritable bowel syndrome and ulcers from the stress... my hair fell out... i lost over 65lbs... i was a nervous wreck... my personal life fell to shambles, i was passed up for a promotion... i lost most of my friends and alienated my family... i'm sorry, but the sheer amount of WORK it takes to get to the top spot is nothing like what you must endure to stay there... my life was a living hell, i would wake to check on turns, moves, invites, pm's, clan games, etc... then, one day... i discovered having sex with women and CC just didn't matter that much to me... i let it all go... i let go of the fear... the angst... the pressure... the stress... and now, i enjoy CC so much more... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

trust me guys... get on it...

Evil Semp wrote:One of the problems is members like to vent or bitch about the way things are. Your opinion is justified but now take it a step further. Make a suggestion or support a suggestion like this one http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=213990 in the suggestion forum. Then start venting or bitching about no action being taken on suggestions.

This has been suggested plenty of times. The problem is we have too many apologists who think it's perfectly natural for the best players to be dormant and not play one another. It's not. It's terrible.