The Scoring System

[Genghis Khan CA]

not really mate. let me develop. at this point most people in the top 10 will play a 6 player standard game vs people like me (1400 points). the only 6 player standard games they'll play are against people within a few hundred points of them. why is that? simple in the games they play they lose normal points (20-25) and they must win 20% of the time to break even.
in the current system playing against 1400 pointers means they have to win 40% of the time to break even. that's really hard to do. if the change i suggested they'll probably be more willing to play because they'll just have to win 30% of the time instead of 40% and that's doable.

if they are really good they'll get that 30% and keep their rank. if they aren't that good they'll lose some points and get back to what they are doing now (elite games). so i don't really see the downside of my plan.

OK you make some good points there - and yes i haven't done the maths (although currently I think the required win ratio would be more like 50%), but certainly a 30% win ratio would be more doable, although I suspect if you crunch the numbers it would actually be much higher. (Although this is for 1400 points which is already above average. For 1000 point players, roughly average, a colonel probably needs to win 2/3 of 6 player games to break even.)

However, points isn't the only reason high rankers like to play each other - comic said it well in his post:

many of us do not enjoy playing with deadbeats,suicide merchants,trash talkers and downright hopeless cases

I constantly had problems with borderline lunatics when I played public games - one player suicided on me for attacking him too much when I hadn't attacked him once in the whole game. We mainly play because the games are more skillful and you do not get crazy people playing.

In any event your example, whilst illustrating the benefits for open singles play, does not address my objection that it would benefit public teams players even more as they stand to lose a lot less from each loss.

[AAFitz]

and just one more


i get to play in some high ranked games, but i also play many open ones

I play them completely differently...in open games, i have to make sure there arent any multis or alliances...if there are, i have to stay clear and just hope for an opportunity...then i have to avoid the suicide player who may not realize hes a suicide player and just doesnt know that the game isnt decided on round one....then i have to make sure there isnt a trouble maker...and again have to avoid him if hes there

then i worry about my actual strategy

now in private games with high ranks heres what I do:

focus on my strategy, and dont worry about feedback, cheating, abuse, or insane moves...I therefore am challenged to win based on my knowlege of the game, and not if i randomly get assinated randomly

I like open games, but I love private games and great players....this is the reason for the groups....the scores are only part of it

[Genghis Khan CA]

Well I sat in the top 15 for months and I can tell you from experience that it is extremely easy to maintane that position, while playing team games...

The point I'm trying to make is that people who don't really deserve to be there are sitting pretty. I've played a lot of colonels before the new rank changes and I can tell you that over half of them had no business in that category... New and better players will only get to the top IF they focus their games around points or just prefer team games more than any other style.

That's my reason for not liking the current point system. It just doesn't give new players a fair shot at the top 20 unless they stick to team games and focus on getting points. You have to realize all those points earned by many of those top players aren't going back down to the low ranked players it's just the oposite! The low ranked players keep giving points away by joining public team games...

I disagree - I got to 3000 points in 223 games playing 50% singles and 50% team games. It took me 6 months because I didn't get premium until a few months ago. A new player could rack up 223 games in a couple of months, and certainly doesn't need to solely play teams to do so. In fact I could not have done it nearly as quickly playing team games.

True you have to be sensible about your game choices if you want to get to a high rank - but if you aren't focusing on getting points then why do you care where you are on the scoreboard anyway?

[Genghis Khan CA]

let's take that example even further. with 2 noobs this time. johnny gets them to join in his triples as his partners. they are good puppy dogs and obey every command. he plays open trips against various random opponents having the 2 new recruits also ensures he loses less points as the team average is lower and gains more points for the same reason. i do belive that johnny is a good trips player and given the fact that the 2 noobs are very obedient, it's like playing with 3 of your accounts so he should win lots of games. soon those 2 noobs will have 2000+ points. thus ranking better than the vast majority of users on this site. are they considered cream? i beg to differ.

DiM, you are forgetting that Johnny and Blitz are mainly maintaining their scores rather than increasing them substantially - anyone playing trips with them is unlikely to see their score increase substantially from those games alone - where their score might increase is from what they learn from those guys and apply in games without them. Show me a clueless noob with 2000+ points and I will believe you. Most 2000+ point players are at the very minimum competent - I have never played against one who is not at least a solid player.

[DiM]

not really mate. let me develop. at this point most people in the top 10 will play a 6 player standard game vs people like me (1400 points). the only 6 player standard games they'll play are against people within a few hundred points of them. why is that? simple in the games they play they lose normal points (20-25) and they must win 20% of the time to break even.
in the current system playing against 1400 pointers means they have to win 40% of the time to break even. that's really hard to do. if the change i suggested they'll probably be more willing to play because they'll just have to win 30% of the time instead of 40% and that's doable.

if they are really good they'll get that 30% and keep their rank. if they aren't that good they'll lose some points and get back to what they are doing now (elite games). so i don't really see the downside of my plan.

OK you make some good points there - and yes i haven't done the maths (although currently I think the required win ratio would be more like 50%), but certainly a 30% win ratio would be more doable, although I suspect if you crunch the numbers it would actually be much higher. (Although this is for 1400 points which is already above average. For 1000 point players, roughly average, a colonel probably needs to win 2/3 of 6 player games to break even.)

However, points isn't the only reason high rankers like to play each other - comic said it well in his post:

many of us do not enjoy playing with deadbeats,suicide merchants,trash talkers and downright hopeless cases

I constantly had problems with borderline lunatics when I played public games - one player suicided on me for attacking him too much when I hadn't attacked him once in the whole game. We mainly play because the games are more skillful and you do not get crazy people playing.

In any event your example, whilst illustrating the benefits for open singles play, does not address my objection that it would benefit public teams players even more as they stand to lose a lot less from each loss.

well i actually don't think players in the 1400-1500 points zone are deadbeats or suicide idiots.
as for trash talkers, i assure you score has nothing to do with that. i've seen high ranked trash talkers as well as cooks that only bitched. it's about how old and educated you are not how many points you have.

the reason i'm frustrated with the current score system is that i want to try my strength against 2000+ players but i can't cause they won't join my games or they won't let me join theirs. i'm not saying i'm better than them. i'm actually consider myself an average player seeking fun games that makes mistakes because he's in a rush to tell jokes in the chat. often i've been more captured by the chat discussion than the game itself.

[DiM]

let's take that example even further. with 2 noobs this time. johnny gets them to join in his triples as his partners. they are good puppy dogs and obey every command. he plays open trips against various random opponents having the 2 new recruits also ensures he loses less points as the team average is lower and gains more points for the same reason. i do belive that johnny is a good trips player and given the fact that the 2 noobs are very obedient, it's like playing with 3 of your accounts so he should win lots of games. soon those 2 noobs will have 2000+ points. thus ranking better than the vast majority of users on this site. are they considered cream? i beg to differ.

DiM, you are forgetting that Johnny and Blitz are mainly maintaining their scores rather than increasing them substantially - anyone playing trips with them is unlikely to see their score increase substantially from those games alone - where their score might increase is from what they learn from those guys and apply in games without them. Show me a clueless noob with 2000+ points and I will believe you. Most 2000+ point players are at the very minimum competent - I have never played against one who is not at least a solid player.

actually do the math from my example. 3 players with 3000 points playing against 3 players with 1000 will win 7 points each. but if a 3000 point player get 2 noobs as puppy dogs he will win 12 points from each game. in case of a loss they get a deficit of 33 points. given the fact the team acts as one they'll have a high winning % and not only will the 3000 points guy start increasing his score but the 2 noobs he has in the team will quickly improve their scores too. my guess is the 2 noobs will reach 2000+ before 200 games with ease.

[Genghis Khan CA]

well i actually don't think players in the 1400-1500 points zone are deadbeats or suicide idiots.
as for trash talkers, i assure you score has nothing to do with that. i've seen high ranked trash talkers as well as cooks that only bitched. it's about how old and educated you are not how many points you have.

the reason i'm frustrated with the current score system is that i want to try my strength against 2000+ players but i can't cause they won't join my games or they won't let me join theirs. i'm not saying i'm better than them. i'm actually consider myself an average player seeking fun games that makes mistakes because he's in a rush to tell jokes in the chat. often i've been more captured by the chat discussion than the game itself.

Absolutely, I don't wish to imply that most are - it is a minority. However, I know a lot of players in that zone do not fully appreciate escalating strategy and can unwittingly hand the game to another player by going for a continent for example.

Anyway, there are plenty of excellent players who play lots of open games still - wacicha is the most obvious example, you do not have to have high score by your name to be an excellent player. I know I played a fair few 2000+ point players in public games when I was starting - you can test yourself against them and learn from them.

[Molacole]

Well I sat in the top 15 for months and I can tell you from experience that it is extremely easy to maintane that position, while playing team games...

The point I'm trying to make is that people who don't really deserve to be there are sitting pretty. I've played a lot of colonels before the new rank changes and I can tell you that over half of them had no business in that category... New and better players will only get to the top IF they focus their games around points or just prefer team games more than any other style.

That's my reason for not liking the current point system. It just doesn't give new players a fair shot at the top 20 unless they stick to team games and focus on getting points. You have to realize all those points earned by many of those top players aren't going back down to the low ranked players it's just the oposite! The low ranked players keep giving points away by joining public team games...

I disagree - I got to 3000 points in 223 games playing 50% singles and 50% team games. It took me 6 months because I didn't get premium until a few months ago. A new player could rack up 223 games in a couple of months, and certainly doesn't need to solely play teams to do so. In fact I could not have done it nearly as quickly playing team games.

True you have to be sensible about your game choices if you want to get to a high rank - but if you aren't focusing on getting points then why do you care where you are on the scoreboard anyway?

Because if your rank isn't high then you are shit out of luck when it comes to playing the people who earned their way to the top and deserve to be there. It will be nearly impossible to get more than a couple games against the best players on the site simply because the scoring system prevents this from being a common occurance.

The point I'm trying to make is you're going to have one long ass wait to get a shot at the top players here wether you deserve it or not as far as skill goes. The way it works now is rank determines if you deserve a game with the best or not.

So wether or not you feel rank is important or not doesn't make much of a difference unless you're looking to play top notch apponents...

If everyone could "anti up" the same amount of points lossed per game then rank would only be an issue when it comes to who is going to create the game being played.

Rank should be just that and that alone. It shouldn't have an affect on how the community responds to each other as far as game selection goes. I feel this way because I'm really not a fan of segregation...

[DiM]

well i actually don't think players in the 1400-1500 points zone are deadbeats or suicide idiots.
as for trash talkers, i assure you score has nothing to do with that. i've seen high ranked trash talkers as well as cooks that only bitched. it's about how old and educated you are not how many points you have.

the reason i'm frustrated with the current score system is that i want to try my strength against 2000+ players but i can't cause they won't join my games or they won't let me join theirs. i'm not saying i'm better than them. i'm actually consider myself an average player seeking fun games that makes mistakes because he's in a rush to tell jokes in the chat. often i've been more captured by the chat discussion than the game itself.

Absolutely, I don't wish to imply that most are - it is a minority. However, I know a lot of players in that zone do not fully appreciate escalating strategy and can unwittingly hand the game to another player by going for a continent for example.

Anyway, there are plenty of excellent players who play lots of open games still - wacicha is the most obvious example, you do not have to have high score by your name to be an excellent player. I know I played a fair few 2000+ point players in public games when I was starting - you can test yourself against them and learn from them.

yes i agree i've seen people with scores that lost many troops trying to get australia when the game was escalating. i mean come on would a 2 bonus help you when the trade in is at 30-40??

i've also seen people that didn't know how to coordinate a team in freestyle or that did not know about chained fortifs.

i've played a few games with wachicha. the first lesson i learned was not to get intimidated when surrounded but high rankers.

[KennyC]

I wish I was around for the start of this conversation (vacation was nice though), but I think there are a couple points that have been missed:

Singles vs. Team players: There are certainly valid arguments for both sides (Easier to get points as a Team player/it is equally as hard to get points either way). I would contend that it is only quicker to reach your climax score as a Team player, assuming you choose a partner(s) who is equal in skill. For the sake of argument lets say that a good player will win 33% of singles games and 66% of teams. It would follow that since the singles player is only gaining points in 1/2 of the games that the team player is, it will take the singles player longer. There might be an argument that the single players steps are bigger than the doubles so it all works out, and although I would accept that as a valid argument in theory, I think that the fact that there are so many team players at the top goes in favor of my point here.

Secret Societies: If players decide to play exclusively in a group of players, the group as a whole does not gain any points. They just exchange the points between themselves. In order to gain points they must branch out from the group. That being said I do not think this hurts CC in anyway, it is fun to play with friends or people who you know will make their turns. I have a couple groups that I play with but the majority of us also play public games.

Top ranked players playing lower ranked players: I do not think it is unreasonable for the top ranked players to refuse to play lower ranked players. If they cannot cut it with other top ranked players their score should drop, gibbom is a clear example of this as we watch him drop in rank nearly every day. Someone used my favorite baseball team as an example to counter my point, but I think Soccer outside of the US is a much better example. If I start a new team in England, I don't get to play in the Premier league with Man U, Arsenal, or Chelsea. I have to start in a low divsion and work my way up through the leagues, much the same way you advance in rank here. On the other hand it is not uncommon to see these top teams play low teams in exhibition games (even the Red Sox play Northeastern University and Boston College every year at spring training) that do not count for anything.

[comic boy]

not really mate. let me develop. at this point most people in the top 10 will play a 6 player standard game vs people like me (1400 points). the only 6 player standard games they'll play are against people within a few hundred points of them. why is that? simple in the games they play they lose normal points (20-25) and they must win 20% of the time to break even.
in the current system playing against 1400 pointers means they have to win 40% of the time to break even. that's really hard to do. if the change i suggested they'll probably be more willing to play because they'll just have to win 30% of the time instead of 40% and that's doable.

if they are really good they'll get that 30% and keep their rank. if they aren't that good they'll lose some points and get back to what they are doing now (elite games). so i don't really see the downside of my plan.

OK you make some good points there - and yes i haven't done the maths (although currently I think the required win ratio would be more like 50%), but certainly a 30% win ratio would be more doable, although I suspect if you crunch the numbers it would actually be much higher. (Although this is for 1400 points which is already above average. For 1000 point players, roughly average, a colonel probably needs to win 2/3 of 6 player games to break even.)

However, points isn't the only reason high rankers like to play each other - comic said it well in his post:

many of us do not enjoy playing with deadbeats,suicide merchants,trash talkers and downright hopeless cases

I constantly had problems with borderline lunatics when I played public games - one player suicided on me for attacking him too much when I hadn't attacked him once in the whole game. We mainly play because the games are more skillful and you do not get crazy people playing.

In any event your example, whilst illustrating the benefits for open singles play, does not address my objection that it would benefit public teams players even more as they stand to lose a lot less from each loss.

well i actually don't think players in the 1400-1500 points zone are deadbeats or suicide idiots.
as for trash talkers, i assure you score has nothing to do with that. i've seen high ranked trash talkers as well as cooks that only bitched. it's about how old and educated you are not how many points you have.

the reason i'm frustrated with the current score system is that i want to try my strength against 2000+ players but i can't cause they won't join my games or they won't let me join theirs. i'm not saying i'm better than them. i'm actually consider myself an average player seeking fun games that makes mistakes because he's in a rush to tell jokes in the chat. often i've been more captured by the chat discussion than the game itself.

My doubles partner Hatchman had 1300 points 4 weeks ago and suffered the same frustrations as yourself,today he has a shade over 2100 points and is playing in Captains games,probably 600 points of this gain has been from singles. When he reached 1400 points he set up games for 1400-1600 point players and basically rose one rank each week until now he is setting up Captains games. Im sorry mate but if he can do it then I really dont see why anybody cant do it providing they have the requisite degree of skill and put in a little effort.

[comic boy]

Well I sat in the top 15 for months and I can tell you from experience that it is extremely easy to maintane that position, while playing team games...

The point I'm trying to make is that people who don't really deserve to be there are sitting pretty. I've played a lot of colonels before the new rank changes and I can tell you that over half of them had no business in that category... New and better players will only get to the top IF they focus their games around points or just prefer team games more than any other style.

That's my reason for not liking the current point system. It just doesn't give new players a fair shot at the top 20 unless they stick to team games and focus on getting points. You have to realize all those points earned by many of those top players aren't going back down to the low ranked players it's just the oposite! The low ranked players keep giving points away by joining public team games...

Well how do you explain the likes of Genghis and myself getting into the top 10 when we play a large percentage of singles games and DONT belong to crack teams that mug newbies for points. I have to laugh when you tell us how easy it is to farm points from team games because when I was a humble major (old rankings ) and you a near General I joined 2 of your games thinking it would be easy pickings. The first game we both forted heavily to our third team member who promptly went on vacation,the second game you missed a turn and got yourself taken out !
I think I lost a total of about 80 points which put my ambitions on hold for a while,how I laughed

[alex_white101]

Well I sat in the top 15 for months and I can tell you from experience that it is extremely easy to maintane that position, while playing team games...

The point I'm trying to make is that people who don't really deserve to be there are sitting pretty. I've played a lot of colonels before the new rank changes and I can tell you that over half of them had no business in that category... New and better players will only get to the top IF they focus their games around points or just prefer team games more than any other style.

That's my reason for not liking the current point system. It just doesn't give new players a fair shot at the top 20 unless they stick to team games and focus on getting points. You have to realize all those points earned by many of those top players aren't going back down to the low ranked players it's just the oposite! The low ranked players keep giving points away by joining public team games...

Well how do you explain the likes of Genghis and myself getting into the top 10 when we play a large percentage of singles games and DONT belong to crack teams that mug newbies for points. I have to laugh when you tell us how easy it is to farm points from team games because when I was a humble major (old rankings ) and you a near General I joined 2 of your games thinking it would be easy pickings. The first game we both forted heavily to our third team member who promptly went on vacation,the second game you missed a turn and got yourself taken out !
I think I lost a total of about 80 points which put my ambitions on hold for a while,how I laughed

im not sure thats true, molacole is right, it is difficult to break into the top 10 but then easier to mantain that position (i did not say easy but easIER!) Also im not bring rude but ghengis has made it to the top via doubles with his brother as well as at least a hundread points from gibbom (bro) via 1 vs 1's. Once you are in the top few people say '' i play alot of singles'' tho see how many are private games with the same players over and over again. and very few public so the fall is less, whereas someone with say 2500 who may not be invited to these must still play public standards where they stand to lose far more points hence making it difficult to break into the top few. im not saying this is wrong but the best way to make it to the top is certainly team games.

[panicker]

Some quite good posts over the last 5 pages and I have to agree that I agree with a lot of both sides to this argument.

IMO playing team games with a good partner you play well with is a sure fire way of getting points, this coming from a player who had about a 25% (if that) win ratio from team games until I found an excellent partner in BYR and we won tons in a row, helping me on my way to 2000 points along with some singles. Saying that I found it took a lot more strategy and a lot more time to play these than my singles because of the co-ordination needed , a bit more planning than standard games and a whole lot more time to take each turn.

I had to cut my team games due to a new job and not much time so stuck to singles, mostly I admit with similar rank, and have risen to 2500+. Even now I'll play with lower ranks , been in a couple tournys with all ranks , If I get an invite to a game Ill more than likely join within reason. I recently set up games and invited a mixture of ranks , within 1000 points of me , whom I'd played with before and they soon filled up and I'm know there's a whole lot of players like me in the top 250/above 2000.

So its a bit unfair that some people just believe all the top players are point whores only playing team games , It's bullshit people who say team games aren't easy to make points with but that doesn't mean to say they don't require a lot of skill , strategy and time.For those of you who think people take the points thing too seriously , of course they do, its human nature ffs , I dont watch my beloved toon play a match just to see a good game , I wanna see points in the bag and see us top of the table, and if you say you don't care about points get out of the argument.

In conclusion I get all my satisfaction playing how I like , Knowing I got my score fairly and mostly on my own , playing enjoyable games and hopefully getting higher on the scoreboard.

Worry about your own games and let someone else worry about their's

Edit: maybe best if you just read the last line lol

[comic boy]

Alex you are talking nonsense !
When I had 2000 points I was playing games against RL_Orange and Maniacmath who had 3000 points - now I have 3000 points and in my current games the lowest rated has about 1800 points and the highest is the current Champion on about 3500 points. There are at least 50 Captains,Majors and Colonels who regularly play in the singles games I organise - Fact !
I Actually played a game with you not so long ago when the ranks involved ran from Lt to Major so I really dont know why you think that none of the top twenty players play singles outside a tight knit clique.

[panicker]

btw the scoring system is fine

[alex_white101]

Alex you are talking nonsense !
When I had 2000 points I was playing games against RL_Orange and Maniacmath who had 3000 points - now I have 3000 points and in my current games the lowest rated has about 1800 points and the highest is the current Champion on about 3500 points. There are at least 50 Captains,Majors and Colonels who regularly play in the singles games I organise - Fact !

exactly! what about all the high rankers not invited to those, they have to play public singles where it is far more costly when u lose and less lucrative when u win. whereas those high up keep to themselves. im not complaining but thats how it is, making it easy to keep ur rank when u get it as u can keep to yourselves and not risk points. again im not saying this is wrong but its the way it is.

[comic boy]

Alex you are talking nonsense !
When I had 2000 points I was playing games against RL_Orange and Maniacmath who had 3000 points - now I have 3000 points and in my current games the lowest rated has about 1800 points and the highest is the current Champion on about 3500 points. There are at least 50 Captains,Majors and Colonels who regularly play in the singles games I organise - Fact !

exactly! what about all the high rankers not invited to those, they have to play public singles where it is far more costly when u lose and less lucrative when u win. whereas those high up keep to themselves. im not complaining but thats how it is, making it easy to keep ur rank when u get it as u can keep to yourselves and not risk points. again im not saying this is wrong but its the way it is.

Im sorry Alex but you have lost me - What high rankers are you talking about that are not invited to games ? I must have invited most players over 2000 points at some stage and there is a thread on callouts devoted to CC2000 games. There are also regular call outs for those with 1600+ and 1800+ points so who exactly is being excluded

[sully800]

I didn't read the thread, but I like the fact that there is one vote in support of the idea (presumably the creator of said idea) and 29 votes against.

[Rahm Es Hestos]

ghengis ur logic is flawed my friend, as i originally stated i need to win 2/3 of my games to go up in points....if i win 1/3 i dont go anywhere.

[Genghis Khan CA]

ghengis ur logic is flawed my friend, as i originally stated i need to win 2/3 of my games to go up in points....if i win 1/3 i dont go anywhere.

Hmm - well you dont need to win 2/3 to go up then... you only need to win 34%

[AAFitz]

Dim, you say its the scoring system thats keeping you from playing high ranked players....but youre at 1400....if you cant beat the people at 1400, and get to 2000...you already know how you will do against the 2000 point players....

at least get to 1600 and play the elite games...plenty of 2000 pointers(((im so annoyed with the changing ranks...it used to be so easy to say colonels...now im not even sure what it is)))will play in those

if you cant get to 2000....youre not ready for them trust me...I have never seen a bad player in CC2000 games....thats why they are so fun, and its why its worth working your way up to play in them....but if you cant get there...youre better off playing at your level, or you will lose all your points anyways

ive seen perhaps one complaint or too in mine, and a quick "no-drama" reminder gets everyone back on track....no one can say this is true in lower ranked games

[gibbom]

im not sure thats true, molacole is right, it is difficult to break into the top 10 but then easier to mantain that position (i did not say easy but easIER!) Also im not bring rude but ghengis has made it to the top via doubles with his brother as well as at least a hundread points from gibbom (bro) via 1 vs 1's. Once you are in the top few people say '' i play alot of singles'' tho see how many are private games with the same players over and over again. and very few public so the fall is less, whereas someone with say 2500 who may not be invited to these must still play public standards where they stand to lose far more points hence making it difficult to break into the top few. im not saying this is wrong but the best way to make it to the top is certainly team games.

Sorry, but I have to point out a couple of errors here.

(i) genghis and i have played 59 doubles games together (with 3 still going). I'm not sure the exact points gain (genghis probably knows) but even if we won 10 points a game (which would be doubtful given the points lost in a loss), that's less than 600, each of which make it more difficult to win points in the future. In the period when genghis went from captain to colonel we didn't play any doubles games. Most of the doubles we played were before genghis hit 2000 points, although I'm hoping we can play some more I only play doubles with genghis because i enjoy playing with him, to suggest that two players with 3000+ points can benefit points-wise from playing together is incorrect.

(ii) yes genghis has won a few points off me in 1v1's in the last month (thanks to ridiculous dice), but it isn't fair to imply that this was some ruse to gift my points to genghis. The games in which i lost the most points took place after genghis was already in the top 10, and i certainly wasn't trying to gift him points. I play to win every game i enter (unfortunately it rarely goes to plan )

I'm sure genghis knows the stats better than me but i'd be surprised if he would be anywhere near his current level if he only played team games. you can't get to 3000 points in around 200 games just playing teams. And there are plenty other who have made it to the top without teams (maniacmath, Robinette etc).

Personally I'm not too fussed about points, it was fun being no 1 for a while but really the main benefit of points from my point of view is to signal to other players that you are a good player. If others manipulate the points for their advantage so be it - you'll know they're not really a good player and find someone else to play if you want a good game.

[Genghis Khan CA]

We won 376 points together bro... by far my most successful partnership

I think this thread is dying anyway... I think panicker said it best -

Worry about your own games and let someone else worry about their's

Hope we're all having fun here on CC regardless of points and rank... I know I am

[bob72]

nice read for someone who has only finished 9 public games and who got creamed on most of them it's very interesting to read how players get points.

So now I must look for a partner to help me get some points I can play in 6 player standard without 4 deadbeats.

For the points system I don't know enough to warrant an opinion but I did like the idea of some games being for 0 points and thus allowing everyone to play regardless of rank.

This would be great as I don't then have to lose 100s of points learning the game. (I knew risk but as others have said risk and CC are two different beasts).

If anyone wants to take me under their wing for a while PM me