Conquer Club

Elijah S wrote:I'm sure the "top players" are good players, but the real factor is luck.
I've played games on this site for over a year and all I can say is the initial placement and luck of the dice outweigh everything else.
Sure, solid strategy is important, but lets face it, this is a game of chance... really no different than other games where luck is involved.

Elijah S wrote:I'm sure the "top players" are good players, but the real factor is luck.
I've played games on this site for over a year and all I can say is the initial placement and luck of the dice outweigh everything else.
Sure, solid strategy is important, but lets face it, this is a game of chance... really no different than other games where luck is involved.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:MOST OF THE TOP RANKED PLAYERS ARE OVERRATED AND GLORIFIED. Come on have you seen the games these guys play. Most of them play the same thing, either large games, freestyle, unlimited fortifications, escalating cards or 2 player games with escalating, freestyle, and unlimited fortifications. The reason they look so good is because those are the only games they play. For the first 5 rounds of a large escalating game there is relatively no strategy. The only strategy comes in the 6th and 7th rounds. But even then does starting position and other players moves help with a victory. I play a lot of very tough conquerclubbers who are ranked majors or colonels and these guys are TOUGH they play with great strategy. If these guys at the top of the leaderboard are really good why don't they play more hardcore and diverse strategy games with no cards and limited fortifications. They have strategy and i bet are pretty good don't get me wrong, but I just want them to prove it by playing more of the tougher games to win. NOW WHO'S WITH ME!!!?!!?!!?!

another low rank crying about what he cant achieve.

oVo wrote:Actually it has no relativity to how good anybody is,
but simply shows that anyone can win.

THE ARMY wrote:

oVo wrote:Actually it has no relativity to how good anybody is,
but simply shows that anyone can win.

you are absolutely right oVo winning doesn't prove how good anyone is! That is what i have been saying all along, the people (for one example JohnnyRocket24) win win win, but take a look at who he plays! A lot of high scorers are overrated, they have a lot of points, gained by playing low risk games like 8 player freestyle, triples, or 2 player vs. bad opponents. They prove that they can win consistently but against who and in what?

THE ARMY wrote:

oVo wrote:Actually it has no relativity to how good anybody is,
but simply shows that anyone can win.

you are absolutely right oVo winning doesn't prove how good anyone is! That is what i have been saying all along, the people (for one example JohnnyRocket24) win win win, but take a look at who he plays! A lot of high scorers are overrated, they have a lot of points, gained by playing low risk games like 8 player freestyle, triples, or 2 player vs. bad opponents. They prove that they can win consistently but against who and in what?

THE ARMY wrote:I understand that an 8 player freestyle game is hard to win in, and also that the higher ranks are good in these games and win much more than others. But that is exactly my point. They are good in this style of game, because it is mostly what they play. They specialize in a style and continue to play it. But a downside to that is that it doesn't show true capability, if the top ranks are truley the best in ConquerClub then have them show it, not by playing one type of game, but all types. If they are the best then prove it. Dominating in a specific style is good, infact it is awesome! I would love to dominate in a specific game setting, and have others cry mercy when i am kicking their butt, but it doesn't show that they are well rounded. So i am just expressing myself and others by letting people know that we don't think they are all that. And the specialization doesn't just go for the 8 player freestyle games, but any game in which a person plays repeatedly (or if you're johnnyrocket any game as long as your playing against a cadet or chef )

THE ARMY wrote:If they can win in any setting then they should try playing every setting, im up for a challenge. If they can hold there own and there points during all the different settings then they are truley good

THE ARMY wrote:If they can win in any setting then they should try playing every setting, im up for a challenge. If they can hold there own and there points during all the different settings then they are truley good

MajorRT wrote:Above is further proof that the "Top players are overrated" ( good players who superspecialize in certain game settings for max scores)

FabledIntegral wrote:1. No card games are more dependent on dice + drop than escalating game, which is significantly more dependent on strategy. Sure you can get screwed by having two countries in Oceania, and 3 in Africa, but you can still reposition yourself (will go over it in the next point).

2. If you think that the first 5 turns involve no strategy, that's probably why you're low ranked. It involves moving your armies around, and positioning yourself for prime position. Find out who's weak, who's wasting their armies, and how you can get near them. At the same time, you need to ensure you get a card, and don't attack too many people en route to your destination, lest you lose too many armies yourself and become a target. Also if you see a low rank who IS weak but is apt to attack randomly on whoever is next to them, figure out if it is beneficial enough to stay next to them. Debate on what is more important, moving to a location to get a +2 bonus because you have a card for the territory, or moving into a position that is more advantageous.

3. You need to know when to cash or when not to cash in a casual game. If you have 4 cards, should you cash, or wait for 5? If you wait for five, you can potentially do a midcash the next turn by killing any 3's on the board. However, by not cashing you make yourself a prime target to others who want to kill you and take your cards.

4. Flat Rate is the least strategy type in the entire game. In a 1v1 (on smaller maps), whoever gets the first mixed set will almost always win, assuming the other person does not also get one. It makes it *so* dependent on luck and so devoid of strategy I have stopped playing flat rate games in one player.

5. Unlimited is a preference over anything else. Having chained would hardly alter gameplay, and if you think that high ranked players are "dependent" on that, you are highly mistaken.

6. Going on after point #1, no card games, if played by higher ranks, will generally end in stalemates, because they are smart and don't make retarded moves. However at low ranks, players are so stupid and don't see the bigger picture they just attack who's next to them. I typically get caught in this crossfire. And considering if I play 8 player games with low ranks (who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first"), if I win 3/8 of my 8 player freestyle games I'll probably just break even points wise (I lose about 60 points vs a cook, gain 5), and that's still beating the odds (as you should obviously win 1/8 of your freestyle games statistically).

7. Terminator games are out of the question as then players have a legitimate reason to suicide me as they get more points sacrificing themselves to take me down in the process.

8. Fog of War games is simply a mode that adds luck to the game, and log analyzing, not something I'm fond of. You have to continually look at the log and compare it to the map to be able to predict where they will be, about how many armies they will have had to kill to get to that location, and their strength. Not worth my time.


Any more complaints/bashing? Just another noob that plays 8-player classic speed freestyle unlimited with clickable maps

Bruceswar wrote:

MajorRT wrote:Above is further proof that the "Top players are overrated" ( good players who superspecialize in certain game settings for max scores)

This has nothing to do with max scores. Not everybody is like Klobber who sets up games with settings not many like so newer players will join. In fact many of the top players do not even care about the points or rank, they just enjoy playing. Nobody should have to play X settings to prove they are good. People are allowed to play what they like. I just took a look at your games, and I notice something. Most of all of your games that are not 1 vs 1 are Seq Flat rate, or No cards. Seems like you have picked out your settings and are playing them. These are the settings you choose to play, so before you start throwing tomatoes, make sure you are ready to eat some. I did not see where you completed one Assassin game or one freestyle game with more than 1 player. What does all this tell me? Nothing! All this tells me is you enjoy and play certain types of games.

THE ARMY wrote:FabledIntegral you are a well rounded player. You have proven yourself playing all styles and all maps. In fact one of my friends told me about you and how you were the up and coming Conquerer. I give you respect. Now look at your rank. You are a major, a field officer, just as i predicted. I feel that field officers take more risks than upper ranks, (some colonels, but mainly brigs, gens, field marsh.) I never said you were overrated because you aren't, but the risks you take to prove your worthiness isn't the same for some of the higher ranks.