Feel free to let this thread die as most players dont get it

[HighlanderAttack]

Wait, it's rude to tell a cook they are a bad player?

Shit, don't read some of my game chats.

You are the only person who got the point of this thread I believe.

There is no way that anyone should lose 196 points (almost a whole rank) playing three games was my point.

You KNOW the risk you run, so please, don't bitch about it.

Inb4 "it wuz a turny gamezorz!!fiftyfive!!"

Not bitching--just stating. I am mostly a medium to upper major and it does not change very often. It just does not make sense to me that at best a 60% chance to win can net you a 196 point loss.

1. You join a tournament, where you KNOW the odds are about 50/50.
2. A cook (WHICH MEANS HE IS BAD AT PLAYING THIS GAME) joins the same tournament.
3. You play cook.
4. You may tie him in the series, but he gets a positive net points.
5. You bitch about this though YOU KNEW THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE CONSEQUENCES. If you don't want to lose that many points, don't join a easy-to-lose game/tourney.
6. ??????
7. PROFITS!

just curious if you bother to read before you make your lists--seems like you are clueless to my what I have written

[obliterationX]

Why is this thread not in the Map Foundry?

[Metsfanmax]

CC points are CC points, and nothing more. However it doesn't really excuse your rudeness towards the cook in those games though, does it? I do think, though, that the current system is ridiculous to say the least!

this coming from one of the rudest players on the site. LOL

Okay, then I'll say it, and I'm not normally rude. There's no justification for calling someone a bad player without provocation, and it's not your opponent's fault that he'll get a lot of points for winning against you. If you don't want to play against random people who might be low rank, then don't start open games, and if you don't like that Risk is luck-based... then don't play it.

You all just jump to conclusions without even looking into the game properly.

A. Read the reasons why I called him a bad player (he attacked 3v3's continuously on his first turn trying to get a bonus). He has missed 7% of his turns. He started as a 324 point cook. I am so sorry it is so rude to some of you, but those are the things that make a bad player.

B. It is a tournament game not a random game just made up.

It doesn't matter if you think it's true that he's objectively a bad player; it's still incredibly rude to do that. I don't think he's trying to be a "bad" player - everyone was a cook once. And as for the fact that it's a tournament game, the same principles apply: if you don't want to risk the point losses, you shouldn't join tournaments where you could potentially play someone with like 4000 less points. But since you joined the tournament, you're implicitly acknowledging that you could lose the points, since after all Risk is a game of luck and even cooks win against officers sometimes. The fact that you lose a lot of points is justified in every other ranking system for any other game (cf. chess) - if it didn't work that way, low rank players would never move up, and high rank players would never move down, and the whole system would just stagnate. People like you might be happy, but since people who are ranked highly are in the minority on this site, it would not be for the best.

[Army of GOD]

Metsfan, apparently "we don't get it".

Whatever "it" is, I'm unsure.

[HighlanderAttack]

Metsfan, apparently "we don't get it".

Whatever "it" is, I'm unsure.

You somehow think I am bitching when I am just stating the points for a three game 1v1 set are way out of whack.

I am not worried about losing points, but I think that a system that has that big of a difference is by far out of whack--this is a reiterations so you might actually get my point.

You may have been a cook before but I have never been a cook and I must say any good player never drops to cook level. I have always believed you are a bad player if you can't gain enough points to stay out of cook level. Just look at the distribution of points between wins and loses when players are separated by more than 200 points. It should be impossible to drop to cook level.

[HighlanderAttack]

I had to go back and read my game chat to see totally rude and mean I was:

2010-06-30 21:46:57 - HighlanderAttack: you sure are a lucky BAD player

All I have to say is grow some skin--I can't imagine what some of you would do if someone was truly obnoxious. You might go hide your heads under your pillow and cry yourself to sleep.

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfan, apparently "we don't get it".

Whatever "it" is, I'm unsure.

You somehow think I am bitching when I am just stating the points for a three game 1v1 set are way out of whack.

I am not worried about losing points, but I think that a system that has that big of a difference is by far out of whack--this is a reiterations so you might actually get my point.

You may have been a cook before but I have never been a cook and I must say any good player never drops to cook level. I have always believed you are a bad player if you can't gain enough points to stay out of cook level. Just look at the distribution of points between wins and loses when players are separated by more than 200 points. It should be impossible to drop to cook level.

You were a cook when you started; everyone was. You may no longer be a cook, but everyone was a Risk novice once. Again, that's not the point; there's a difference between thinking someone's a bad player and outright insulting him with no cause. If he's bad, he'll lose most of his games and his points will show it. No need to throw it in his face. I think you should apologize, or at least admit that it was not called for.

As for the ratings drop, you're not in anyway illustrating how you think the points system should be changed - you're just complaining about how many points you're going to lose. That sounds like bitching to me. If you want us to get it, tell us specifically how you think the points system should be modified - the mods can't do much with "make it different." They need real reasons, and a real suggestion.

[Uncle Death]

I didn't start as a cook. I believe it was cadet back then and cooks were added for players who slipped below private. Losing 100 points in one game to one player is goddamned ridiculous. When I was a corporal I felt bad when I was lucky enough to skin a colonel or higher because of the lop sided points victory. (It didn't bother me for long.) I do like that higher ranks lose more to lower ranks but within reason. The current point system discourages higher ranks from public games and the losers are the beginning and lower ranked players who need the experience and lessons gained from the higher ranked, more experienced players. I'm no bleeding heart for the majors and above, I don't even like most of you, but it is a detriment to all the players when the point system causes the better, more experienced, and higher ranked to segregate themselves from the bottom half of the roster. Until I read it in this thread I didn't realize how tournaments were affected by this. There has got to be a lot of good players staying out of them because of this. I'd put a lower cap on point losses in any one game dependent upon the rank.

[Metsfanmax]

Uncle Death, the issue is that the segregation occurs independent of the point loss. If you cap the number of points the high ranked player loses, then you cap the number of points the low ranked player gains, and it becomes that much harder for the low ranked players to move up. As a result, cooks will stay cooks for longer and still be unable to have meaningful competition with the higher ranked players. Also, independent of that, obviously people like HA do not like playing bad players, so they would refrain from that even if they lost less points.

[Army of GOD]

Also, being a cook means nothing army of nobunaga got all the fucking way to 59 points. And having played against him a few times, he is NOT a bad player.

[Uncle Death]

Uncle Death, the issue is that the segregation occurs independent of the point loss. If you cap the number of points the high ranked player loses, then you cap the number of points the low ranked player gains, and it becomes that much harder for the low ranked players to move up. As a result, cooks will stay cooks for longer and still be unable to have meaningful competition with the higher ranked players. Also, independent of that, obviously people like HA do not like playing bad players, so they would refrain from that even if they lost less points.

I think if the penalty was not so severe higher ranks would be more willing to risk their points more often. Cooks aren't moving up because they're beating officers anyway, not much anyway. The cook scenario is the extreme, corporals and sergeants might get more games with officers if the point loss was a little less extreme for much higher ranks. That's all I'm suggesting.

[HighlanderAttack]

Also, being a cook means nothing army of nobunaga got all the fucking way to 59 points. And having played against him a few times, he is NOT a bad player.

Funny, you get on me for calling someone bad, then you use the F word. You also quote someone that uses the most vulgarities on the site--just check 90% of his posts. What a hypocrite you are. So now AoN and yourself think he is a good player--well 2 does make a crowd.

[HighlanderAttack]

Uncle Death, the issue is that the segregation occurs independent of the point loss. If you cap the number of points the high ranked player loses, then you cap the number of points the low ranked player gains, and it becomes that much harder for the low ranked players to move up. As a result, cooks will stay cooks for longer and still be unable to have meaningful competition with the higher ranked players. Also, independent of that, obviously people like HA do not like playing bad players, so they would refrain from that even if they lost less points.

Your still not getting it and you sound a bit bitter(have higher ranks been avoiding you?)

All I did was post what I believe is an example of an outrageous scoring system. I do not avoid low ranks at all. I mostly play all tourneys so I get what I get in the draw and I seem to keep my rank at Major with no problem. To almost lose an entire rank in a three game set is outrageous.

For the cook that I called bad (it was because of the way he played his first round) and the luck that came with it--It is not like I cussed him out or went off on him. I guess the way I worded BAD and lucky it offends some, but maybe he will learn not to just go attack crazy. This time it worked out for him so good for him. I am going to let my feelings known when players make bad moves and if that offends oh well. I would expect the same if I made bad moves.

Most of this game is luck. The drop, start, and dice tell 90% of the story if you have all three most likely 100%. For there to be such a large discrepancy in the scoring of a single 1v1 game is ludicrous. 4 points if you win and 100 points if you lose. I challenge anyone to show me a scoring system in darts, pool, foosball, tennis, golf or anything else that has a legitimate scoring system where the range is that generous.

[owenshooter]

*some more ranting that should be in the suggestion forum*

highlander, my son, you know i love you... however, how can we let this thread die if you continue to bump it? i suggest you figure out a new scoring formula that you would find both fair and beneficial to the site, and take your work to suggestions. go in peace and love, my son, i am always with you...-the black jesus

[HighlanderAttack]

*some more ranting that should be in the suggestion forum*

highlander, my son, you know i love you... however, how can we let this thread die if you continue to bump it? i suggest you figure out a new scoring formula that you would find both fair and beneficial to the site, and take your work to suggestions. go in peace and love, my son, i am always with you...-the black jesus

Every time someone has something to say that seems out there to me it seems I have to respond. It is like someone holding a crack rock in front of me--I just can't say no. I will do my best

[Metsfanmax]

Uncle Death, the issue is that the segregation occurs independent of the point loss. If you cap the number of points the high ranked player loses, then you cap the number of points the low ranked player gains, and it becomes that much harder for the low ranked players to move up. As a result, cooks will stay cooks for longer and still be unable to have meaningful competition with the higher ranked players. Also, independent of that, obviously people like HA do not like playing bad players, so they would refrain from that even if they lost less points.

Your still not getting it and you sound a bit bitter(have higher ranks been avoiding you?)

This isn't about me... I'm perfectly happy with the people I play. I'm just talking about players in general.

All I did was post what I believe is an example of an outrageous scoring system. I do not avoid low ranks at all. I mostly play all tourneys so I get what I get in the draw and I seem to keep my rank at Major with no problem. To almost lose an entire rank in a three game set is outrageous.

The problem is that it's just whining unless you provide constructive ideas on how the scoring system can be improved. You say it's outrageous that you can lose a rank in a three-game set, but that's just outright falsified by every other game with a ranking system - if Federer lost to some random newbie from a local club three times, would people still consider him the world's no. 2 (I understand that luck is a major factor, but you have to understand that the rating system is only as meaningful as people make it - if you want your points to actually matter, then you have to recognize that you earned those points in spite of the luck involved)?

For the cook that I called bad (it was because of the way he played his first round) and the luck that came with it--It is not like I cussed him out or went off on him. I guess the way I worded BAD and lucky it offends some, but maybe he will learn not to just go attack crazy. This time it worked out for him so good for him. I am going to let my feelings known when players make bad moves and if that offends oh well. I would expect the same if I made bad moves.

So your argument is that because you were only a little rude and not as rude as you could have been, that makes your statement okay?

Most of this game is luck. The drop, start, and dice tell 90% of the story if you have all three most likely 100%. For there to be such a large discrepancy in the scoring of a single 1v1 game is ludicrous. 4 points if you win and 100 points if you lose. I challenge anyone to show me a scoring system in darts, pool, foosball, tennis, golf or anything else that has a legitimate scoring system where the range is that generous.

In chess, if Kasparov lost to someone ranked 500, his score would drop by 32, and if he won, his score would increase by 0.

[Uncle Death]

In chess, if Kasparov lost to someone ranked 500, his score would drop by 32, and if he won, his score would increase by 0.

I don't think they use intensity cubes.

[Uncle Death]

*some more ranting that should be in the suggestion forum*

highlander, my son, you know i love you... however, how can we let this thread die if you continue to bump it? i suggest you figure out a new scoring formula that you would find both fair and beneficial to the site, and take your work to suggestions. go in peace and love, my son, i am always with you...-the black jesus

This is most definitely a case of Stockholm Syndrome. Cool Hand Luke has been broken.

[Metsfanmax]

In chess, if Kasparov lost to someone ranked 500, his score would drop by 32, and if he won, his score would increase by 0.

I don't think they use intensity cubes.

This argument is meaningless. There's some inherent level of risk in using a ranking system to describe a luck-based game. If we choose to ascribe meaning to the ranking system, then you're acknowledging that a player with a higher ranking is actually a better player, and that this is despite the nature of the game. If you do that, you can't use a double-standard and then say that the rating system is harmful to higher-ranked players, because that's the nature of the system. The choices are either to have a ranking system and have the ranking system be consistent for every player, or to not have a ranking system because you recognize how random the game can be. But you can't cherry pick between the two points of view - it's just facile to extol the benefits of being a highly ranked player, and then complain when the luck factor turns against you.

[Uncle Death]

In chess, if Kasparov lost to someone ranked 500, his score would drop by 32, and if he won, his score would increase by 0.

I don't think they use intensity cubes.

This argument is meaningless. There's some inherent level of risk in using a ranking system to describe a luck-based game. If we choose to ascribe meaning to the ranking system, then you're acknowledging that a player with a higher ranking is actually a better player, and that this is despite the nature of the game. If you do that, you can't use a double-standard and then say that the rating system is harmful to higher-ranked players, because that's the nature of the system. The choices are either to have a ranking system and have the ranking system be consistent for every player, or to not have a ranking system because you recognize how random the game can be. But you can't cherry pick between the two points of view - it's just facile to extol the benefits of being a highly ranked player, and then complain when the luck factor turns against you.

I was pointing out that chess is not a game of luck and that the rankings are based on skill alone in response to your chess post. What I'm saying and all I'm saying is that the point system discourages higher ranks from getting in to games with lower ranks. That's obvious. I think it is also obvious that the majority of players with a higher rank know how to play the game better. They learned that on the way up. I want to play higher ranked players because they are better than me and when I beat them I don't want them penalized disproportionately. I want their points but I don't want to take so many that they won't play me again. You can have a different opinion but you are arguing against a different opinion than mine.

[Metsfanmax]

The issue again is that you have not segregated CC from any other game with a ranking system. Even in chess (or tennis, or boxing, etc.), the ranking system is used for the very purpose of ensuring that high ranked players don't waste their time playing weaker players that they're not interested in playing, and vice versa. I challenge you to find a ranking system where high ranked players are not harshly penalized for losing to players much weaker than them (but I imagine you won't, since otherwise there is no point to the system).

If you're arguing against the specific formula used for the point calculations, that's one thing; but as I said to HA, there's no point in complaining about it if you aren't able to provide constructive criticism for how the system should be changed. The point calculations are incredibly simple; it wouldn't be too hard to suggest a clear-cut alternative, if you do indeed support one.

[Uncle Death]

Yes, put a cap on points lost in 1 game, 40 or 50. Reduce the point loss discrepancies. I'm thinking that you simply refuse to acknowledge my opinion and are simply shilling for the establishment. This is not a discussion about my opinion, this is simply you refusing to think or consider other opinions. I have come to hate you now and shall foe you. If you think you are a good debater, you are not. You bring nothing to a discussion other than being contrary to whatever is offered. You are what is wrong with our society, it's all about trying to prove you're right rather than trying to understand or build a consensus. That's what I've observed about the majority of participants in the CC forum as well. Most of you are all a bunch of idiot losers and I hate you all. If I didn't like playing the game I would help Hasbro shut down the site. You can't post an opinion here without encountering morons. It makes me sick. I shall throw up now.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes, put a cap on points lost in 1 game, 40 or 50. Reduce the point loss discrepancies. I'm thinking that you simply refuse to acknowledge my opinion and are simply shilling for the establishment. This is not a discussion about my opinion, this is simply you refusing to think or consider other opinions. I have come to hate you now and shall foe you. If you think you are a good debater, you are not. You bring nothing to a discussion other than being contrary to whatever is offered. You are what is wrong with our society, it's all about trying to prove you're right rather than trying to understand or build a consensus. That's what I've observed about the majority of participants in the CC forum as well. Most of you are all a bunch of idiot losers and I hate you all. If I didn't like playing the game I would help Hasbro shut down the site. You can't post an opinion here without encountering morons. It makes me sick. I shall throw up now.

If you're trolling, this is pretty amusing.

If not, your post makes no sense. In no way did I refuse to acknowledge your opinion - my point is that you don't really have one. Saying that the "point system isn't good" is not a particularly clear opinion, and there's not much of a discussion to have if you can't offer specifics on what you think. I am not saying, nor have I said at all in this thread, that the point system is perfect. Rather, I was just trying to urge you to provide the mods with actual suggestions on what you want done, if you do want something done. It's unfortunate that you had to result to personal attacks by the time you offered any suggestions.

My thesis is pretty simple: every other game/sport with a ranking system has one that is similar to the one implemented here, and most people in general support the efficacy of those systems. If you want to change this system, you need to give actual suggestions on what needs to be done to change them, and reasoned analysis on why it will be better for the site as a whole. If you can't do that, then this thread is nothing more than whining. I don't understand what's so "wrong" about that point - it's fairly obvious, and I'm not making any particularly insightful claims here...

[Uncle Death]

I'm not trolling. I gave you my suggestions. You refuse to acknowledge them. You are the one who is trolling. You seem incapable of reading comprehension, which is possible, but I have already explained everything and diagnosed your behaviour as well. Is it really rude to decide to exit a conversation with a boor? I can only imagine your social life if you interact this way in discussions with friends or coworkers. I would guess you have none. I'm trying to be polite as possible to someone who is frustrating to interact with. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I think you do it on purpose. I think the only ideas that matter to you are the ones coming out of your mouth and that is so typical for the posters here. That includes most moderators here. It is an intellectual vacuum in the CC forums. I feel like I stepped in shit the moment I posted. I'm going to try and avoid it.

[Army of GOD]

Yes, put a cap on points lost in 1 game, 40 or 50. Reduce the point loss discrepancies. I'm thinking that you simply refuse to acknowledge my opinion and are simply shilling for the establishment. This is not a discussion about my opinion, this is simply you refusing to think or consider other opinions. I have come to hate you now and shall foe you. If you think you are a good debater, you are not. You bring nothing to a discussion other than being contrary to whatever is offered. You are what is wrong with our society, it's all about trying to prove you're right rather than trying to understand or build a consensus. That's what I've observed about the majority of participants in the CC forum as well. Most of you are all a bunch of idiot losers and I hate you all. If I didn't like playing the game I would help Hasbro shut down the site. You can't post an opinion here without encountering morons. It makes me sick. I shall throw up now.

Please, don't base your posts on what you see in the mirror.