Favourite Conqueror?

[QoH]

Let's get GLG a forum ban, then rerun the thread. That way he can't contact any minions to vote for him.

[Gillipig]

Let's get GLG a forum ban, then rerun the thread. That way he can't contact any minions to vote for him.

I'm sure he could "borrow" some tools account (read "cooldeals" or "dibbun") and handle the guiding from there.

[QoH]

Let's get GLG a forum ban, then rerun the thread. That way he can't contact any minions to vote for him.

I'm sure he could "borrow" some tools account (read "cooldeals" or "dibbun") and handle the guiding from there.

He's winning again... somehow. I wish we could see who voted for which option...

[sdh]

I could just take him out of the poll

[Gillipig]

:D I could just take him out of the poll

That would be the democratic solution .

[_sabotage_]

This whole thread seems to be trash GLG. I'm sure he is an asshole. But then again so am I.

All conquerors have a simple problem to overcome: gaining points.

GlG was beaten recently by a captain and lost 68 points, beat a captain and won 6. Thai Robert won a 8 player freestyle game and wins 50 odd points, loses one and loses 50 odd points.

Emdizzles thread on becoming a colonel or general in 100 games or whatever is a clear cut guide to hoarding. It takes advantage of the scoring system by partnering with a low ranked player, use of lay of the land by choosing certain maps, etc.

Many of the top players like huge maps; hive, world (kaskavel, thai Robert, mhennigan, kiron), freestyle settings, or team games.

They also employ the same general tactics: board spacing, keeping the board level in strength, using potential attack rather than actual attack, creating and exploiting opportunity, etc.

The maps they choose, the settings they choose and their style of play all comes with a clear goal, win. A big map leaves less to the luck of the dice, freestyle means you can take advantage of any opportunity, team games increase use of tactics and limit risk of bad dice again. Board spacing, keeping the board level and potential attack all increase their opportunity to win. They are all operating within the confines of the structure that CC has in place.

Each of them gets accused of cheating. Thai Robert for turning off his online settings and sneaking a kill that someone else has done the work on, mhennigan for use of open diplomacy, Mc05 for his intentional deadbeating, GLG for ranching.

For their discipline, congrats to all players who care and focus on winning. For their strategy, well done on exploiting the system to your advantage. For their style, the game ranks it the best.

As for who is my favorite at performing these same set of tricks? Mohamed Ali, but that doesn't mean I would prefer to piss Tyson off over him.

It seems this poll was set up so that GLG would lose, based on the comments. The irony is that to "win" the poll, you must use his tactics. Recruit specific voters, like he recruits his opponents; control the voting as much as possible, like he controls the game settings; guide the voting through helpful suggestions (ie loads of people praise a specific player on the board and makes him out to be a legend and all say yep, he has my vote), like he gives to his recruits; make promises to increase recruits so you have a higher turnout than him, as he makes promises to his recruits to increase their numbers (most of which can't be kept due to the sheer magnitude or inherent irrationality in them) and you'll have your winner. But I think it is highly amusing that he beats you in this aspect of the game as well, . It is always fun to watch a top player lay the smack down outside the game.

I suggest if you really dissapprove of a style of play, then instead of publicly attacking people and putting them on the defence and then barring them from the discourse; suggest refinements to game options that will make a player with worthier attributes Conqueror. Because it will be the person best able to exploit the scoring system, game options and all other advantages provided for by the system that creates a conqueror.

[Gillipig]

This whole thread seems to be trash GLG. I'm sure he is an asshole. But then again so am I.

All conquerors have a simple problem to overcome: gaining points.

GlG was beaten recently by a captain and lost 68 points, beat a captain and won 6. Thai Robert won a 8 player freestyle game and wins 50 odd points, loses one and loses 50 odd points.

Emdizzles thread on becoming a colonel or general in 100 games or whatever is a clear cut guide to hoarding. It takes advantage of the scoring system by partnering with a low ranked player, use of lay of the land by choosing certain maps, etc.

Many of the top players like huge maps; hive, world (kaskavel, thai Robert, mhennigan, kiron), freestyle settings, or team games.

They also employ the same general tactics: board spacing, keeping the board level in strength, using potential attack rather than actual attack, creating and exploiting opportunity, etc.

The maps they choose, the settings they choose and their style of play all comes with a clear goal, win. A big map leaves less to the luck of the dice, freestyle means you can take advantage of any opportunity, team games increase use of tactics and limit risk of bad dice again. Board spacing, keeping the board level and potential attack all increase their opportunity to win. They are all operating within the confines of the structure that CC has in place.

Each of them gets accused of cheating. Thai Robert for turning off his online settings and sneaking a kill that someone else has done the work on, mhennigan for use of open diplomacy, Mc05 for his intentional deadbeating, GLG for ranching.

For their discipline, congrats to all players who care and focus on winning. For their strategy, well done on exploiting the system to your advantage. For their style, the game ranks it the best.

As for who is my favorite at performing these same set of tricks? Mohamed Ali, but that doesn't mean I would prefer to piss Tyson off over him.

It seems this poll was set up so that GLG would lose, based on the comments. The irony is that to "win" the poll, you must use his tactics. Recruit specific voters, like he recruits his opponents; control the voting as much as possible, like he controls the game settings; guide the voting through helpful suggestions (ie loads of people praise a specific player on the board and makes him out to be a legend and all say yep, he has my vote), like he gives to his recruits; make promises to increase recruits so you have a higher turnout than him, as he makes promises to his recruits to increase their numbers (most of which can't be kept due to the sheer magnitude or inherent irrationality in them) and you'll have your winner. But I think it is highly amusing that he beats you in this aspect of the game as well, . It is always fun to watch a top player lay the smack down outside the game.

I suggest if you really dissapprove of a style of play, then instead of publicly attacking people and putting them on the defence and then barring them from the discourse; suggest refinements to game options that will make a player with worthier attributes Conqueror. Because it will be the person best able to exploit the scoring system, game options and all other advantages provided for by the system that creates a conqueror.

Ah, so you're saying it's all the systems fault. And that players shouldn't use their own heads to determine whether something is fair and honorable. No instead the site should just restrict our game options in all sorts of ways to make sure that the conqueror will be a worthy one. It will of course end up being very impractical, annoying and highly detrimental to the enjoyment of the game for the regular user who just wants to play some games. But nevermind all that because it's all being compensated by that now we no longer have to think about breaking any rules. Because we can't.
Sounds like you've thought this through extensively. I'm impressed!

[_sabotage_]

Close, I'm saying that the higher level players and the accusations, disregard, or admiration for them is based on:

1. Their ability to operate the system,
2. How they are perceived in doing so.

And this is what the poll purports to address.

All of the top players as a given based on their rank are good at operating the system. That any strategist would maximize his opportunity and limit his risk is basic. And the system has slight ways of doing this, many of which I pointed out such as limiting luck and maximizing strategy by using a big map. And all of which have been called cheating. In comparison, GLG is an active predator while Kaskavel is a lurking predator. Kaskavel's rank will definitely attract players into his hive, most of who aren't as good of players in general, let alone on his favorite map with his chosen settings. GLG goes further to minimize risk by herding the pack to find the loose link and pouncing. You can't blame a cheetah for eating the wildebeest when the crocs nearby. And this thread represents all of those lemurs? that are standing on tiptoe and craned neck and shouting warnings all the time.

I never see top players foaming at the mouth over each other. Thai Robert is 145 out of 232, he has been beaten 87 times and most of his games were 8 player, so I'm going with 9-1 chance that he will defeat any given player. He also researched the other players, whether before he joined or during play, I don't know. He actively joins herd to kill them.

This thread and others like it attempt to persecute the player while leaving the terrain there, letting everyone else have access who isn't as adept at it while isolating the master of it. When should we frown on this, when should we enforce it? It feels a little cruel to cage the tiger from his jungle and a little lazy.

I'm saying that as of now we accept that the tiger is in the jungle or remove the jungle and force the tiger to be a croc or a bunny. If we accept that there is an advantage to be had due to the maps, settings and individual skill then we could use enlightenment, warnings and other measures to prevent victims rather than bans, restrictions and threats.

If a player uses one of the effective techniques that maximizes their potential, create a thread on that style teaching defence, rate him as such, post on his wall to tell people not to play him, enter his games and make comments. Or start a poll requesting emblems to be placed on these players walls or next to their name of sharks, or whatever predator they are.

Then instead of saying people were victims to them with no chance, the chance would be there whether they use it or not.

To be on top a lot of odds must be overcome. If it is deemed that certain situations provide an unreasonably unfair advantage, take the gun out of the fight or tell the other players that they're in a gunfight too, that they have a gun too and how to use it. I think preventing the players who knew it was a gunfight in advance and are good with guns from joining or making threads to disparage them is wrong.

[lord voldemort]

So you tell me they play risk how its intended to be played??

[_sabotage_]

According to the site set-up, they choose winning strategies and follow them to the top. I'm not saying its meant to be played this way, I'm saying the site rewards them for their play. And enforces them to play this way to be in a top spot. I respect the diversity of player and wouldn't nitpick at their strategy, but accept it as a strategy to beat the odds and move on with my life.

None of these players is isolated in using their tactics, the tactics are straightforward and make sense. The top players are just the best at executing them.

I'm not saying Risk the boardgame was meant to to be played this way. That was made for friends and not an online community. And in a community there is development or restriction. There are herds and predators. With this thread and others, players are trying to get the herd to turn on the predator, but as such, he becomes the victim. I don't think we should victimize a player who shows skill, patience and determination for one that just shows ignorance and greediness. The potential prey could be provided with easy access to the info and make their own decision to join a game or not.

Wait sorry, everything I wrote above was bullshit. They already are presented with a sign, the rank, easy access to info in forums, ratings and searches, so why not change the direction of our commentary and treat them like dicks for not using all the tools available including common sense?
In most of the world my friends I will smile and thank you if I ever have any form of direct contact with 95% of the people I will ever meet. The other 5% will be people I contact all the time such as family and friends and work shit, and here I am trying my damdest to kill you all. Put your shit elsewhere and lets kill each other. If there are people who really don't care enough to use the tools to decide which kind of game might suit them best, get good at it and or aren't ultimately as good at it as the others, so be it. Let Darwinism live in one place at least.

Blitzaholic designed and then massacred people on a map. That's dope. That is not board game Risk.

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

Sabotage,

I don't know you and have never played you that I recall. Congratulations on very logical and eloquent postings, much more interesting than the rantings and ravings of lunatics.

[Funkyterrance]

Since this thread was starting I've been struggling with a way to define my feelings regarding the "conqueror" title. I've been pondering just what it takes to reach this status and why the whole business just doesn't sit right with me in a way.
My answer came to me today as I was watching J. Edgar starring Leonardo Dicaprio and dawned on me during the scenes about the Lindbergh Baby kidnappings. I realized that in order to pull off such a thing as kidnapping, you must be a very specific type of person: driven, intelligent, careful, callused and most importantly, manipulative. While these are all characteristics that may be admired by some, and happen to coincide with those needed to rise very high in the ranks of cc, they don't rank very high on my personal list of admirable character traits.
But, of course, to each their own.

[fadedpsychosis]

I'll preface this by saying I have never played any of the conquerers past or present that I can ever recall, nor have I ever had any direct interaction with any of them. Sabotage has the right of it: Risk is about strategy, and everything the conquerers do or have done to get to the top requires strategy of some kind. Having a poll like this is generally going to attract one of two types of answers: who do you like playing/interacting with, or lacking that basing your decision on reputation. I've noticed quite a few people here complaining about the large number of votes GLG gets, but quite frankly if he's the only conquerer that someone has ever interacted with, and he's at the least polite to them, of course he's going to get votes. Personally, I prefer a more... analytical approach (I never liked popularity contests). Having little else to go on, I look at the stats of the top few players, specifically GLG and MH. Currently, GLG has 5118 points, with 1634 completed games, and a win ratio of 82%. MH has 4895 points with 436 games played and a 48% win ratio. Of the two, MH has gotten top the top much quicker, and interestingly with a much lower win ratio. This obviously means the players he's been going up against have been much higher ranked and (if we assume rank equals playing ability) better players. To me MH has proved his mettle as a better player, simply by the numbers, thus won my vote.

[Johnny Rockets]

fadedpsychosis:

I don't know you and have never played you that I recall. Congratulations on very logical and eloquent postings, much more interesting than the rantings and ravings of lunatics.

JRock

[Funkyterrance]

I'll preface this by saying I have never played any of the conquerers past or present that I can ever recall, nor have I ever had any direct interaction with any of them. Sabotage has the right of it: Risk is about strategy, and everything the conquerers do or have done to get to the top requires strategy of some kind. Having a poll like this is generally going to attract one of two types of answers: who do you like playing/interacting with, or lacking that basing your decision on reputation. I've noticed quite a few people here complaining about the large number of votes GLG gets, but quite frankly if he's the only conquerer that someone has ever interacted with, and he's at the least polite to them, of course he's going to get votes. Personally, I prefer a more... analytical approach (I never liked popularity contests). Having little else to go on, I look at the stats of the top few players, specifically GLG and MH. Currently, GLG has 5118 points, with 1634 completed games, and a win ratio of 82%. MH has 4895 points with 436 games played and a 48% win ratio. Of the two, MH has gotten top the top much quicker, and interestingly with a much lower win ratio. This obviously means the players he's been going up against have been much higher ranked and (if we assume rank equals playing ability) better players. To me MH has proved his mettle as a better player, simply by the numbers, thus won my vote.

This is a very naive way to look at the conqueror tbh.
I've played my share of the board game and eventually most people plateau skill-wise and so it ends up coming down to luck to a certain extent. This is not to say that some people aren't naturally more strategically minded, just that among strategically minded people no-one rises so high above the others so as to gain points by leaps and bounds than someone who has a competitive edge (some may refer to this as cheating). While diplomacy is generally not considered cheating, it is also pretty obvious to other strategically minded people when it happens and therefore cannot be attributed to the overall success of a player. What is left to give an advantage are the other catch-all ways to gain points: farming, etc..
We are not talking about high ranked players playing other high ranked players to gain a top position so its really not a very accurate title. In order to to be truly prestigious, you should have to conquer something worth conquering that actually puts up a fight. Does walking into a chicken pen and killing thousands of chickens make one a warrior? I think not.

[fadedpsychosis]

This is a very naive way to look at the conqueror tbh.
I've played my share of the board game and eventually most people plateau skill-wise and so it ends up coming down to luck to a certain extent. This is not to say that some people aren't naturally more strategically minded, just that among strategically minded people no-one rises so high above the others so as to gain points by leaps and bounds than someone who has a competitive edge (some may refer to this as cheating). While diplomacy is generally not considered cheating, it is also pretty obvious to other strategically minded people when it happens and therefore cannot be attributed to the overall success of a player. What is left to give an advantage are the other catch-all ways to gain points: farming, etc..
We are not talking about high ranked players playing other high ranked players to gain a top position so its really not a very accurate title. In order to to be truly prestigious, you should have to conquer something worth conquering that actually puts up a fight. Does walking into a chicken pen and killing thousands of chickens make one a warrior? I think not.

I fail to see what is naive about my view, and if fact you made my point for me. I believe MH was a better conqueror than GLG because he clearly goes against much tougher opponents than GLG (thus the farming etc. which I won't go into because it has several other discussions doing the topic far more justice than I can). As far as strategy: again I believe Sabotage already made the point: whatever you do to minimize your point loss is in some fashion a strategy.
To quote Sun Tsu's The Art of War (good book, you should read it sometime) "All warfare is based on deception." and "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
I see it like this: every tactic used to gain more points than anyone else is a strategy. See definition 4 from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy?s=t Yes luck plays a VERY large part in this game but there are ways of minimizing the Risk taken (pun intended). I also disagree when you say diplomacy "cannot be attributed to the overall success of a player". Diplomacy can mean quite a bit especially when once again the luck of the dice can screw you over (repeatedly in some cases...) Do I consider it cheating? Not in the slightest. Do I consider constantly fighting far less experienced players cheating? I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but I certainly consider it unworthy of a true conqueror (as you said: "Does walking into a chicken pen and killing thousands of chickens make one a warrior? I think not."). It is certainly a strategy though none the less.
Personally I don't play the game for the points (as should be obvious, look at my score), I play it because it is a game and it is fun. If I wanted to go for points, I'd find a map I'm really good at, get better with it, find rules that I kick ass with, then do nothing but play those kind of games. I don't do that. I find whatever's open with only a few slots left so I'm not stuck waiting forever for the game to start, and I just play. If I want a higher rank I'll do that offline (being actually in the military), the pay's better.

[JCR]

If I want a higher rank I'll do that offline (being actually in the military), the pay's better.

Quite possibly the best sentence I have read on this site!

[Funkyterrance]

This is a very naive way to look at the conqueror tbh.
I've played my share of the board game and eventually most people plateau skill-wise and so it ends up coming down to luck to a certain extent. This is not to say that some people aren't naturally more strategically minded, just that among strategically minded people no-one rises so high above the others so as to gain points by leaps and bounds than someone who has a competitive edge (some may refer to this as cheating). While diplomacy is generally not considered cheating, it is also pretty obvious to other strategically minded people when it happens and therefore cannot be attributed to the overall success of a player. What is left to give an advantage are the other catch-all ways to gain points: farming, etc..
We are not talking about high ranked players playing other high ranked players to gain a top position so its really not a very accurate title. In order to to be truly prestigious, you should have to conquer something worth conquering that actually puts up a fight. Does walking into a chicken pen and killing thousands of chickens make one a warrior? I think not.

I fail to see what is naive about my view, and if fact you made my point for me. I believe MH was a better conqueror than GLG because he clearly goes against much tougher opponents than GLG (thus the farming etc. which I won't go into because it has several other discussions doing the topic far more justice than I can). As far as strategy: again I believe Sabotage already made the point: whatever you do to minimize your point loss is in some fashion a strategy.
To quote Sun Tsu's The Art of War (good book, you should read it sometime) "All warfare is based on deception." and "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
I see it like this: every tactic used to gain more points than anyone else is a strategy. See definition 4 from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy?s=t Yes luck plays a VERY large part in this game but there are ways of minimizing the Risk taken (pun intended). I also disagree when you say diplomacy "cannot be attributed to the overall success of a player". Diplomacy can mean quite a bit especially when once again the luck of the dice can screw you over (repeatedly in some cases...) Do I consider it cheating? Not in the slightest. Do I consider constantly fighting far less experienced players cheating? I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but I certainly consider it unworthy of a true conqueror (as you said: "Does walking into a chicken pen and killing thousands of chickens make one a warrior? I think not."). It is certainly a strategy though none the less.
Personally I don't play the game for the points (as should be obvious, look at my score), I play it because it is a game and it is fun. If I wanted to go for points, I'd find a map I'm really good at, get better with it, find rules that I kick ass with, then do nothing but play those kind of games. I don't do that. I find whatever's open with only a few slots left so I'm not stuck waiting forever for the game to start, and I just play. If I want a higher rank I'll do that offline (being actually in the military), the pay's better.

I have read The Art of War, guess you don't know your enemy very well, making assumptions like that.

[fadedpsychosis]

Thus; knowing myself, but not knowing my enemy, I win some, I loose some...

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

tisk, tisk, tisk, I don't know why I bother wasting any time re-educating some of the morons on this site, but here goes:

this thread is NOT about who is the BEST SKILLED CONQUEROR, but who is the FAVORITE. Now one person recently touched on it, but I'll take a quick shot from the hip and list, about WHO does what best and MAYBE shed some light on which Conqueror is liked because they:
1) are very skilled; didn't get to 4,000+ in 200-500 games: NOT GLG 0-1
2) knows how to NOT LOSE: GLG 1-1
3) happen to have highest score (not an indication of ability): GLG 2-1
4) yacks with the commoners most in Live Chat: GLG 3-1
5) hosts the most tournaments: GLG 4-1
6) has been told the most that his WALL is the funniest on CC: GLG 5-1
7) has won the most Favorite Conqueror surveys (2-0 and counting), until they are reset for a new conq: GLG 6-1
8 ) verbally chastises the Forum Nutjob Magna-posters; AND invited them to Live Chat to talk real time: GLG 7-1

Get the message? need I go on? feel free to join me in Live Chat some day. . .

Thanks voters!

[fadedpsychosis]

well if you want to put it that way...

as I stated from the beginning, I really don't like popularity contests... but from everything I have ever seen from you in the forums GLG, you are exactly the kind of person I would LEAST want to associate with... therefore you are definitely NOT my favorite, regardless of how I feel about the other conquerors (which as I said, I don't know them)

[codeblue1018]

tisk, tisk, tisk, I don't know why I bother wasting any time re-educating some of the morons on this site, but here goes:

this thread is NOT about who is the BEST SKILLED CONQUEROR, but who is the FAVORITE. Now one person recently touched on it, but I'll take a quick shot from the hip and list, about WHO does what best and MAYBE shed some light on which Conqueror is liked because they:
1) are very skilled; didn't get to 4,000+ in 200-500 games: NOT GLG 0-1
2) knows how to NOT LOSE: GLG 1-1
3) happen to have highest score (not an indication of ability): GLG 2-1
4) yacks with the commoners most in Live Chat: GLG 3-1
5) hosts the most tournaments: GLG 4-1
6) has been told the most that his WALL is the funniest on CC: GLG 5-1
7) has won the most Favorite Conqueror surveys (2-0 and counting), until they are reset for a new conq: GLG 6-1
8 ) verbally chastises the Forum Nutjob Magna-posters; AND invited them to Live Chat to talk real time: GLG 7-1

Get the message? need I go on? feel free to join me in Live Chat some day. . .

Thanks voters!

2- Your two reprimands, warning and 30 ban prove why.
4- Precisely like number #2; your "commoners" we're the reason for your reprimands as they were duped into playing you due to your live chat sessions. As most know and for those that don't, browse through C/A; his recent infractions are clearly spelled out.

"Get the message". Clearly I as well as most don't get "your message".

[cooldeals]

Let's get GLG a forum ban, then rerun the thread. That way he can't contact any minions to vote for him.

I'm sure he could "borrow" some tools account (read "cooldeals" or "dibbun") and handle the guiding from there.

GLG, because I don't need to watch Soap Operas on TV any more. And he asked, so voting for him should make the drama even better.

Honestly, I thought my post was hilarious. Please don't call me a tool, it's not polite.

I guess I did ask for more drama though so this could be partially my fault. To make the drama better, here are 7 reasons why I voted for GLG:

1) I don't really know ANY of the conquerors so I'm not betraying anyone.
2) Live Chat activity is always dead, but when GLG is brought up there's always nice juicy conversation
3) This thread wouldn't have near as much activity without the GLG controversy.
4) Apparently the controversy increases activity on CC, which is good for everyone.
5) He may get banned soon, so this is kind of like granting someone their last wish.
6) I'm not a Mod so he doesn't give me headaches.
7) I can laugh at this post when I'm the only one who finds it funny.

[Gillipig]

Let's get GLG a forum ban, then rerun the thread. That way he can't contact any minions to vote for him.

I'm sure he could "borrow" some tools account (read "cooldeals" or "dibbun") and handle the guiding from there.

GLG, because I don't need to watch Soap Operas on TV any more. And he asked, so voting for him should make the drama even better.

Honestly, I thought my post was hilarious. Please don't call me a tool, it's not polite.

I guess I did ask for more drama though so this could be partially my fault. To make the drama better, here are 7 reasons why I voted for GLG:

1) I don't really know ANY of the conquerors so I'm not betraying anyone.
2) Live Chat activity is always dead, but when GLG is brought up there's always nice juicy conversation
3) This thread wouldn't have near as much activity without the GLG controversy.
4) Apparently the controversy increases activity on CC, which is good for everyone.
5) He may get banned soon, so this is kind of like granting someone their last wish.
6) I'm not a Mod so he doesn't give me headaches.
7) I can laugh at this post when I'm the only one who finds it funny.

You are forgetting the newbies he scares away by farming. He's on the negative side of contributions to say the least. I understand you're new here so you probably haven't had all the facts presented to you because, GLG = Bad! lol

[comic boy]

Im looking forward to the day when I get so desperately needy that I start to canvas votes for an internet popularity contest , it probably wont be long