Conquer Club

Anybody else out there that should be on this list?

It only takes a little more that 2000 points, with the focus on standard games...

Here is re-print from somewhere in the middle of this thread that explains the criteria:

Many problems exisit in trying to create an accurate list of singles only scores with the current scoring system.
In an effort to create a fair representation, without encouraging anyone to manipulate any scoring system, this list has been revamped with 2 changes....

The 1st problem to be addressed was the accuracy of removing team scores. As pointed out earlier in this thread, the higher the ratio of team games the higher the scoring error can be. The solution to this 1st problem is to limit this list to players who focus on singles games, using 88% minimum single games... or no more than 12% being team games.

The 2nd problem was the method of adjusting the score when someone had poor team scores. As pointed out in this thread, intentional team losses would be calculated as point gains in your singles score. The solution to this 2nd problem is to limit the point adjustment to a zero gain effect for the singles score.

Obviously this is not the perfect way to calculate these scores, but it is the best we can do with what we have to work with. There are many who continue to have their fingers crossed that Lack will improve the situation with regards to score calculations in the coming update. I am one of those people.

woho! just lost 52 points playing doubles, so i guses that drops my handicap from 345 to 293...

well. i know it is not possible... But i made myself lose all my doubles points playing 1v1.. I love winning 4 and lose 80... So I lost most of my doubles points and now I will try and get some back playing singles.. =)

juve you sexy beast

give me some of that

coming from a person that says they a re abusing a loop-hole in the system regarding 6 player escalating cards i think you shouldnt even be on the scoreboard!!!!

hulmey wrote:coming from a person that says they a re abusing a loop-hole in the system regarding 6 player escalating cards i think you shouldnt even be on the scoreboard!!!!

Please elaborate - I must have missed that !

hulmey wrote:coming from a person that says they a re abusing a loop-hole in the system regarding 6 player escalating cards i think you shouldnt even be on the scoreboard!!!!

shhhhh.... this isn't the time or the place for that....

Hehe, every game I've played with you robinette you seem to get 2 pair, so your program must be broken

Genghis Khan CA wrote:Hehe, every game I've played with you robinette you seem to get 2 pair, so your program must be broken

mnnnn, you think so? hee hee... i suppose it could appear that way... ... although sometimes it's worth holding a set for the next round...

Robinette wrote:mnnnn, you think so? hee hee... i suppose it could appear that way... ... although sometimes it's worth holding a set for the next round...

Hehe - I can tell when I get your cards

juventino wrote:well. i know it is not possible... But i made myself lose all my doubles points playing 1v1.. I love winning 4 and lose 80... So I lost most of my doubles points and now I will try and get some back playing singles.. =)

you were supposed to lose (i mean play) some of those to me

Genghis Khan CA wrote:

Robinette wrote:mnnnn, you think so? hee hee... i suppose it could appear that way... ... although sometimes it's worth holding a set for the next round...

Hehe - I can tell when I get your cards

grrrrrrrrrrr.....
i hate it when you get my cards...
it means i should have not waited to cash....

what you're overlooking is that once you take my cards and eliminate me you have obfuscated what was a valid CLR and this means we lose the boolean that identified the current file as valid or not, interestingly enough, this occurs whenever ANYBODY is eliminated... in simpler terms, it means that ANY elimination completely resets the mechanics and eliminates the ability for it to work for the rest of the game... if I could only figure out a patch for that then I should be able to easily climb to #1. Easier said than done....

Robinette wrote:

Genghis Khan CA wrote:

Robinette wrote:mnnnn, you think so? hee hee... i suppose it could appear that way... ... although sometimes it's worth holding a set for the next round...

Hehe - I can tell when I get your cards

grrrrrrrrrrr.....
i hate it when you get my cards...
it means i should have not waited to cash....

what you're overlooking is that once you take my cards and eliminate me you have obfuscated what was a valid CLR and this means we lose the boolean that identified the current file as valid or not, interestingly enough, this occurs whenever ANYBODY is eliminated... in simpler terms, it means that ANY elimination completely resets the mechanics and eliminates the ability for it to work for the rest of the game... if I could only figure out a patch for that then I should be able to easily climb to #1. Easier said than done....

its much harder to change the color of the cards when hit, because you dont know which color the other player has...its much easier to just eliminate a card altogether when they get transferred...its completely undetectible, the player will be confused, but there will be no record of the card ever existing if you delete the one line of game log that goes with it

Ive had a few complaints about doing this, but almost no one ever figures it out

Updated July 21, 2007

I now present to you...
Top 10 Highest Singles Players Scores
(without team points)



....................... current score .............. current ............. highest ..... current......... #
.......................... with NO...................... score................. score ....... overall.......games
........................ team games................(7/21/07)............... ever ......... ranking.....played

1. Lazaruslong . . . .2934 . . . . . . . . . . . 3137 . . . . . . . . 3267 . . . . . #7 . . . .495
2. maniacmath. . . . 2894. . . . . . . . . . . .3211. . . . . . . . .3514 . . . . . #5 . . . . 882
3. ZawBanjito. . . . .2723 . . . . . . . . . . . 2723. . . . . . . . .2930 . . . . . #26 . . . 437
4. steve monkey . . 2714 . . . . . . . . . . .2714 . . . . . . . . 2820 . . . . . #27 . . . 1043
5. artur1 . . . . . . . . .2632. . . . . . . . . . . 2766 . . . . . . . . 2713 . . . . . #20 . . . 225

6. Nuke. . . . . . . . . . 2588 . . . . . . . . . . .2588 . . . . . . . . 3160 . . . . . #39 . . . 497
7. Robinette. . . . . . 2577 . . . . . . . . . . . 2708 . . . . . . . . 3021 . . . . . #28 . . . 314
8. sully800 . . . . . . .2473 . . . . . . . . . . .2473 . . . . . . . . 2650 . . . . . #54 . . . 239
9. Cyberdaniel . . . . 2283 . . . . . . . . . . .2404 . . . . . . . . 3145 . . . . . #67 . . . 679
10. Point Guard . . . 2234 . . . . . . . . . . .2261 . . . . . . . . 2283 . . . . #104 . . . 175

11. Kid_A . . . . . . . .2171 . . . . . . . . . . .2362 . . . . . . . . 2573 . . . . . #76 . . . .608

CONGRATS TO Point Guard... THE NEW #10

Robinette wrote:Anybody else out there that should be on this list?

It only takes a little more that 2000 points, with the focus on standard games...

Here is re-print from somewhere in the middle of this thread that explains the criteria:

Many problems exisit in trying to create an accurate list of singles only scores with the current scoring system.
In an effort to create a fair representation, without encouraging anyone to manipulate any scoring system, this list has been revamped with 2 changes....

The 1st problem to be addressed was the accuracy of removing team scores. As pointed out earlier in this thread, the higher the ratio of team games the higher the scoring error can be. The solution to this 1st problem is to limit this list to players who focus on singles games, using 88% minimum single games... or no more than 12% being team games.

The 2nd problem was the method of adjusting the score when someone had poor team scores. As pointed out in this thread, intentional team losses would be calculated as point gains in your singles score. The solution to this 2nd problem is to limit the point adjustment to a zero gain effect for the singles score.

Obviously this is not the perfect way to calculate these scores, but it is the best we can do with what we have to work with. There are many who continue to have their fingers crossed that Lack will improve the situation with regards to score calculations in the coming update. I am one of those people.

hey robin u forgot to reduce my handicap... i actually won 7 points from another doubles win plus a loss so the reduction is 45 which makes the handicap an even 300.

still don't like how this works though. It's like a golfer thats a grown man having to include rounds that he played as a child towards his golfing handicap.

maniacmath17 wrote:hey robin u forgot to reduce my handicap... i actually won 7 points from another doubles win plus a loss so the reduction is 45 which makes the handicap an even 300.

still don't like how this works though. It's like a golfer thats a grown man having to include rounds that he played as a child towards his golfing handicap.

hmmm... are you sure you got it right? you had 79 team games under game # 500,000 which i believe established your 'handicap' at 362, and you have now completed 5 recent team games for a 45 point change (winning 1 for +24 points, and losing 4 games for -18,-17,-17,-17)... when i went to school that would add up to 317.

Anyway, I went ahead and updated all the stats...
kinda ironic though, seeing as you are now #2... maybe you shoulda left well enough alone... (hope you aren't too bothered by this)

PS- What do you think about the idea that we increase the requirement of singles games to 90.5%, no more than 9.5% team games....

nvm i guess i thought my handicap was 345 before the team games. ill take ur word for it since i don't plan on going through and counting all my team points, lol.

and no nothing wrong with 2nd. the way this is set up it would be real tough for me to get to the top. as for the 90.5% thing, that would be pretty disappointing, lol. ive been tryin to stay right at 90% so i can at least have room to play a few team games in order to support my clan...

maniacmath17 wrote:nvm i guess i thought my handicap was 345 before the team games. ill take ur word for it since i don't plan on going through and counting all my team points, lol.

and no nothing wrong with 2nd. the way this is set up it would be real tough for me to get to the top. as for the 90.5% thing, that would be pretty disappointing, lol. ive been tryin to stay right at 90% so i can at least have room to play a few team games in order to support my clan...

i wuz jess mezz'un whit chew, seeing howz yor por-cent wuz 90.55 win i done did rote dat. hee hee har dee harr harrrr...

Let's increase it to say 24% team games allowed.

Yeah great idea qeee, I like it!

qeee1 wrote:Let's increase it to say 24% team games allowed.

Yeah great idea qeee1, I like it!

I agree with qeee1 here Robin, I mean playing over 75% singles, well, it's fair to say they are a singles player, and you forgot to put qeee1 on there.

He is back as you know, as we are playing in a game against him

Blitzaholic wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Let's increase it to say 24% team games allowed.

Yeah great idea qeee1, I like it!

I agree with qeee1 here Robin, I mean playing over 75% singles, well, it's fair to say they are a singles player, and you forgot to put qeee1 on there.

He is back as you know, as we are playing in a game against him

Hey, I'm all for it... but the more team games the less accurate the score... (read back through this thread to see why)... anyway, unless YOU want to write the script that would do it, or convice Lack that it would be worthwhile, we have to live with these stooopid limitations... Perhaps there is another Risk site that has a seperate scoreboard for singles... if so, you, me, qeee, manaic, and all the other leet singles players can go there, play 200 games, and settle this once and for all....
grrrrrrr.... it's so freaking stoooopid that we don't have a seperate singles scoreboard... (sorry... tough day, and i'm out of patience... time to go home and eat some ice cream... mnnn, that should make me feel better)

Robinette wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Let's increase it to say 24% team games allowed.

Yeah great idea qeee1, I like it!

I agree with qeee1 here Robin, I mean playing over 75% singles, well, it's fair to say they are a singles player, and you forgot to put qeee1 on there.

He is back as you know, as we are playing in a game against him

Hey, I'm all for it... but the more team games the less accurate the score... (read back through this thread to see why)... anyway, unless YOU want to write the script that would do it, or convice Lack that it would be worthwhile, we have to live with these stooopid limitations... Perhaps there is another Risk site that has a seperate scoreboard for singles... if so, you, me, qeee, manaic, and all the other leet singles players can go there, play 200 games, and settle this once and for all....
grrrrrrr.... it's so freaking stoooopid that we don't have a seperate singles scoreboard... (sorry... tough day, and i'm out of patience... time to go home and eat some ice cream... mnnn, that should make me feel better)

You just want to keep me out.

I think I have about 17% +-3 % Teamgames only.

And I made myself lose 400 points to eat up my doublepoints.. So I hope I soon will be called a singles player =)