Conquer Club

whitestazn88 wrote:its all about the attendance


people give crap ratings, rank is used by the aristocracy to keep the proletariat down.... they're giving us a false conscientiousness that makes us believe rank is important and that premium membership will allow us to ride the wave of unlimited games to the top of the scoreboard....

Excellent point.....it always comes down to $$$$$$$$

MajorRT wrote:Excellent point.....it always comes down to $$$$$$$$

no it doesn't. there are over 30 freemium players on the first page of the scoreboard.
this is a typical excuse used by freemiums to validate their being stuck at a certain rank or
not being able to achieve what they believe/think their rank should be. and as far as your
claiming that i am spamming/trolling your thread, you are misguided. because someone thinks your thread/post is crap and posts counter to it, does not mean that user is trolling/spamming. i have given valid counter points to your vague argument which you set up in an effort to set up your amazing unveil of a weaker counter-point!!! if i don't agree with you, it does not mean i am spamming or trolling. it means i disagree with you. your claim of spamming/trolling is right up there with your claim that i flamed you by sighting the rules. ridiculous.-0

p.s.-for a better thread on the same subject, with actual valid arguments and input, go here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=65775

owenshooter wrote:

MajorRT wrote:Excellent point.....it always comes down to $$$$$$$$

no it doesn't. there are over 30 freemium players on the first page of the scoreboard.
this is a typical excuse used by freemiums to validate their being stuck at a certain rank or
not being able to achieve what they believe/think their rank should be. and as far as your
claiming that i am spamming/trolling your thread, you are misguided. because someone thinks your thread/post is crap and posts counter to it, does not mean that user is trolling/spamming. i have given valid counter points to your vague argument which you set up in an effort to set up your amazing unveil of a weaker counter-point!!! if i don't agree with you, it does not mean i am spamming or trolling. it means i disagree with you. your claim of spamming/trolling is right up there with your claim that i flamed you by sighting the rules. ridiculous.-0

p.s.-for a better thread on the same subject, with actual valid arguments and input, go here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=65775

my point was more of a joke... i don't actually see the cc community as a marxist model.....

but i still do think a persons attendance is most important. like i understand if theyre using the old cheat on freestyle games where you wait til the next turn or w/e it was... but if you miss turns you're a tool

MajorRT wrote:The immportant question is , if ratings are unimportant, as most of the responders think, and random, as some do, then why do we have them? I really would like the mods and even Lack himself to weigh in on this question....

where in this thread did you read that? theres nothing random about ratings at all. and they arent unimportant either. they are just significantly less important than rank to most people.

I think the ratingsystem is a joke !
I dont care about my rating but it says enough if only a multi and a General give me poor ratings it has a hugh influence on your personal ratingscore. Btw both games i won.

'I don't give two shits' is fitting for either.

As others have indicated, the ratings system doesnt really work because pretty much everybody gets good marks. The feedback system was far superior and if Lack was honest he would concede the point im sure, unfortunately it was abused so much by idiots that it became too much of a burden to maintain it.

I agree with Rashid.

Snorri1234 wrote:I have a 5.0 rating. Teehee!

and a crap rank!

nagerous wrote:This is the highest lower than 4.0 rating I found.. by his feedback he sounds like an interesting fella.

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... edIntegral

That guy's a douche.

FabledIntegral wrote:

nagerous wrote:This is the highest lower than 4.0 rating I found.. by his feedback he sounds like an interesting fella.

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... edIntegral

That guy's a douche.

i've never played him... but would love to see what kind of crap he would try to pull on me....

whitestazn88 wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

nagerous wrote:This is the highest lower than 4.0 rating I found.. by his feedback he sounds like an interesting fella.

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... edIntegral

That guy's a douche.

i've never played him... but would love to see what kind of crap he would try to pull on me....

He'd probably try to pull out a win... and succeed. Only a guess.

Yes, he's a brilliant tactitian ; just got to work through some social issues and underlying anger

I do not really mind .I like being a mid-rank with a mid rating. People who pussyfoot around by leaving 5 stars mostly and play with the same players maintain a high rating. Equally so, players who only play high ranks maintain a high rank.I

KoE_Sirius wrote:I do not really mind .I like being a mid-rank with a mid rating. People who pussyfoot around by leaving 5 stars mostly and play with the same players maintain a high rating. Equally so, players who only play high ranks maintain a high rank.I

Yes it has nothing to do with the fact that playing good sporting players produces good sporting games

comic boy wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:I do not really mind .I like being a mid-rank with a mid rating. People who pussyfoot around by leaving 5 stars mostly and play with the same players maintain a high rating. Equally so, players who only play high ranks maintain a high rank.I

Yes it has nothing to do with the fact that playing good sporting players produces good sporting games

I'm not saying thats not the case.Which has nothing to do with this thread.

KoE_Sirius wrote:

comic boy wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:I do not really mind .I like being a mid-rank with a mid rating. People who pussyfoot around by leaving 5 stars mostly and play with the same players maintain a high rating. Equally so, players who only play high ranks maintain a high rank.I

Yes it has nothing to do with the fact that playing good sporting players produces good sporting games

I'm not saying thats not the case.Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Yes I got the wrong end of the stick.....bit hungover

Jeff Hardy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I have a 5.0 rating. Teehee!

and a crap rank!

And I really care about that!

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jeff Hardy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I have a 5.0 rating. Teehee!

and a crap rank!

And I really care about that!

I suspect you do. Although your sarcasm plays it down a little. Nevermind when you grow up.You'll be Conqueror.

I would definitely rather have a high rank.

But none the less i wouldn't like to have an average rating lower than 4....

KoE_Sirius wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jeff Hardy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I have a 5.0 rating. Teehee!

and a crap rank!

And I really care about that!

I suspect you do. Although your sarcasm plays it down a little. Nevermind when you grow up.You'll be Conqueror.

For that I would need to upgrade to premium and not just play against friends.