Please Help!

[xeno]

Maybe there's something I don't understand, but at the end of this game I lost 41 points. I was a Private at the time I lost and thought 41 is a bit much for a private to lose to a cook in a 1vs1 game. Could someone clear this up for me?
1488201 Game number

[AndyDufresne]

This probably better suited here. It might be helpful to supply the game number and link.


--Andy

[xeno]

Thanks

BTW - http://conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1488201

[soundout9]

It's right. Here are the numbers i used but they are wrong since either one of you had to have won a game or lost a game since but.

1027/617*20=33
^ ----^
I -----his score before
I
your score b4

so he must have won a game in the mean time.

[xeno]

<--Never willingly playing a cook again. >.<

[demon7896]

rankist

[soundout9]

rankist

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2362322

[detlef]

<--Never willingly playing a cook again. >.<

When Privates start copping attitude about who they will and will not play, the terrorists have won.

Mind you, I really think everyone should chill out to some degree when it comes to this sort of thing. However, there's a decent argument to be made by officers that they want to play in games where they're assured that everyone has shown they're good enough at the game. At least enough that they're not subject to one of the players making completely random or stupid moves that hand the game over to another player.

I will tend to avoid playing very low ranking players for the reason I just gave. However, I have some guys that I really enjoy playing against often that just happen to have ratings much lower than I do. I really couldn't give a crap about how many points I'm risking.

[wacicha]

rankist

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2362322

hmm i was pawned

[xeno]

<--Never willingly playing a cook again. >.<

When Privates start copping attitude about who they will and will not play, the terrorists have won.

Corporal at this post!