Conquer Club

Weird huh?

What?

on the scoreboard...

Oh, first place. I thought you meant in a game.

not exactly, as Poo misses like 600 games.....

not alphabetical order then... by win %??? how is it decided?

as in the rest of the scoreboard; the one with the more games experience comes first

in this case its a bit weird; cause someone with less games at number one did a better job, (or maybe not?)

It's by games played.

The tie has been broken as poo-maker has now inched ahead,
but hasn't had a chance to wear the Conquerer crown.

Interesting stats...
poo-maker with 3748 pts. winning 46% of 758 complete games
&
SkyT with 3741 pts. winning 77% of 1358 complete games

but also impressive is...
#6 Colonel mhennigan with 3232 pts after only 139 games
&
#16 Major Thai Robert with 2922 pts. after only 93 games

lol Conquerer is Number 2

oVo wrote:The tie has been broken as poo-maker has now inched ahead,
but hasn't had a chance to wear the Conquerer crown.

Interesting stats...
poo-maker with 3748 pts. winning 46% of 758 complete games
&
SkyT with 3741 pts. winning 77% of 1358 complete games

but also impressive is...
#6 Colonel mhennigan with 3232 pts after only 139 games
&
#16 Major Thai Robert with 2922 pts. after only 93 games

poo had the crown for a few hours earlier today...

all i know is the amount of games these guys played and the scores they have are incredible. I think your all fantastic.... but hey i just noticed i'm in the top 5 pages.....lol..........even with losing 100 poionts in the last week.......

ive played almost 3300 games...

I've played almost 70 games lol (I'm making my climb... maybe not quite as fast as people like mhennigan though)

SkyT has won more games than poo-maker has even played.

Bartoli wrote:as in the rest of the scoreboard; the one with the more games experience comes first

in this case its a bit weird; cause someone with less games at number one did a better job, (or maybe not?)

You can interpret it in a different way-- A player that has reached let's say 1000 games and a score of 4000. It means that after playing 1000 games, he's still maintained a score of 4000. Now you take a player that has played 500 games...... you know that score at 500 but not at game 1000. I think it's more credible to have a high game count and a high score because it shows that you can maintain it over a long period of time-- longevity; a proven track record. With the variable in game selection, this would be the best comparison.

Only true way to compare apples to apples is for both players to have the same amount of games with a specific score. For instance if SkyT stopped playing and let Poo play 1360 games and then see if Poo's score would be higher or lower.

So to all the players that say-- 'I'm better because I reached 4000+ in 200 games.........." The response to that would be -- let me see you have 4000+ after 2000 games. Don't get me wrong it's an incredible achievement to have 3000+ in 2/300 games but I think it's only half the battle. We all know the quick rise up the ranks because of the point system and we also know you hit a brick wall when your score is in the top 1% let alone as Conquerer. For Poo to have 3700+ in 750+ games is remarkable and astonishing. I have no doubt whatsoever that he will not only maintain it but exceed all expectations.

Hat's off to all the previous and existing Conquerers................

What if that person who got 4000 pts over 1000 games got 4000 for the first time there, then they wouldn't have maintained it they'd just be in the same situation as the one with 500 games.

removed

what's a ridiculous statement.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:what's a ridiculous statement.

I think you mean....What's a ridiculous statement

I too was wondering the same thing .......

It is a good thing that more importance is given to the games that have been played more recently. This means that if a person has improved in their game play, their score won't be weighed down by their past games. This makes it so that the score reflects how good you currently are instead of how good you have been on average.

One thing that I never bother looking at is win percentage because you can boost that just by playing 1 on 1 games or team games. If you have a 70% win rate, that is something to be proud of, but a 40% win rate is worth more if the person played 6 player games.

The score system is great! It works fine.

Gilligan wrote:lol Conquerer is Number 2

not as bad as when krusher got demoted and was still conqueror for an hour with only 1000 points.

Scott-Land wrote:...

Hat's off to all the previous and existing Conquerers................

Except Krusher.

But, in all seriousness, they really do deserve a pat on the back. That's a lot of hard work and effort put in to the game. Good job.

half those guys cheated they just haven't been busted yet...

krusher, stop being sore about getting caught. It is possible to reach conqueror without cheating.