Conquer Club

poo-maker wrote::roll: LOL chess. You think by playing low rankers, the high rankers will reach 5000? Only in trips would that be possible, even then. Surely its easier to build up high scores by playing people of similar ranks.

nooooo , i am saying its impossible to get to 5000 points if u go on in the same circle...maybe try to expand it...like allow 1300-1400 scores players to join the "high ranked" games....only then will ppl hit 5000 pts in no time!

chessplaya wrote:

poo-maker wrote::roll: LOL chess. You think by playing low rankers, the high rankers will reach 5000? Only in trips would that be possible, even then. Surely its easier to build up high scores by playing people of similar ranks.

nooooo , i am saying its impossible to get to 5000 points if u go on in the same circle...maybe try to expand it...like allow 1300-1400 scores players to join the "high ranked" games....only then will ppl hit 5000 pts in no time!

I disagree chess, that would even out the scores more.

poo-maker wrote:

chessplaya wrote:

poo-maker wrote::roll: LOL chess. You think by playing low rankers, the high rankers will reach 5000? Only in trips would that be possible, even then. Surely its easier to build up high scores by playing people of similar ranks.

nooooo , i am saying its impossible to get to 5000 points if u go on in the same circle...maybe try to expand it...like allow 1300-1400 scores players to join the "high ranked" games....only then will ppl hit 5000 pts in no time!

I disagree chess, that would even out the scores more.

hey u probably gonna lose a couple because of luck...but if u keep them in the games for lets say 3-4 weeks u will take full advantage of their points they will be then around 1100-1200 let say they were 200 guys inside those high score games 200 points from each or lets just say 100 points from each....send them to the high score players...then stop inviting them to ur "high score games" then lets say we have 200 high scorers with 20000 points from low scores inside their circle of points .... that means POINTS WILL RISE....maybe u will lose a couple of "captains" A.K.A colonels but the rest will have to deal with 20000 new points....points will rise..I BET UR ASS IT WILL... i am not good at math hope maniacmath is around to make me sure of what i am saying


EDIT: listen to reason and stop being a high ranked asshole i am talkin to every high ranker in cc...not only u poo!

It makes perfect sense to me. In every army you get thousands of privates but only very few make it to the top ranks. I like it...

I doubt that it works like that. High rankers would lose too many points. I understand that you're suggesting to play against inexperienced players, but everyone gets lucky sometime... And when they would get lucky, they would walk away with 150+ points.

papadopo wrote:It makes perfect sense to me. In every army you get thousands of privates but only very few make it to the top ranks. I like it...

Talking about being harder to get high ranks than getting low ranks

poo-maker wrote:I doubt that it works like that. High rankers would lose too many points. I understand that you're suggesting to play against inexperienced players, but everyone gets lucky sometime... And when they would get lucky, they would walk away with 150+ points.

is it just impossible to proove a point to u ?? or r u always that stubborn and cant think farther then ur nose

chessplaya wrote:

poo-maker wrote:I doubt that it works like that. High rankers would lose too many points. I understand that you're suggesting to play against inexperienced players, but everyone gets lucky sometime... And when they would get lucky, they would walk away with 150+ points.

is it just impossible to proove a point to u ?? or r u always that stubborn and cant think farther then ur nose

lol. Sorry chess, but i still don't think that it would work. Believe me, if i thought that it could work, i would try.

hmmm probably u r right who knows....if u dont try u will never know !!!

chessplaya wrote:hmmm probably u r right who knows....if u dont try u will never know !!!

Well, if i get really desperate for a hat, i might try...

I completely agree with neph, and so does pretty much every high-ranked person.

Big Yuma Ripper wrote:LOL i dont care really what the rank symbol is...... I am only looking at the scoreboard, There is only one positon 1st. everybody else is behind that . That is what I, and just guessing here but all the top players are shooting for. I dont care if it is a bunny rabbit symbol!

Right on Yuma! My sights are fixed on the Golden Rabbit!

I really don't mind the tinkering with rank or symbols; it was a small shock when i saw my hat turn to a parallelogram but i think it added a little ambition to my game.

Regarding the lower ranks, ask yourself: if you arrived on the site recently, would you be let down at the changes? or would you prefer the new system? Personally I think the latter.

Even though i very much liked having the hat it did seem a little skewed me having 2000 points and having the same gestalt prestige as a player on 3000. Do we need more ranks than Major in between? probably not; this way more gravitas is added to the highest ranks and that is as it should be.

Humans just don't like change to established systems ... fortunately i am a chicken and we embrace rejuvenation.

chessplaya wrote:IF U ONLY PLAY THE HIGH RANKED GAMES THE LOW RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS NO MATTER WHAT THEY R ( LOW RANKS =1500 AND BELOW) AND THE HIGH RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS AS THEY R..AND THEN NO1 WILL BE ABLE TO GO 4000 OR 5000..... sorry for caps just had to do it...if the players dont change ur points wont change maybe it will go up for a bit...but then down ...u will lose to the same players which r the 200-300 how many they r i dont know leaving outside that circle 15000 players...now if u profit their points and put them inside that circle SCORES WILL DEFINETLY GO HIGHER!

Alright, everyone gather around and I will explain how the people at the top will continue to get higher and higher, no matter what the current system is.

As Chess said, if high rankers only played high rankers, how would new points be brought into the system? Yet, as others pointed out, high rankers stand to gain very little from playing low rankers, and yet they lose a lot. So how do the points get to the top?

Time.

Let's say people only played others that were + or - 200 points to them. That's a much more restricted range than we actually see, but that fact only makes the example better. So this month, perhaps 1000 new recruits join the game, half of them lose their first few games and never return. That's a net gain of perhaps 25,000 points into the system....yet they don't end up at the top of the scoreboard, instead the new corporals, earn them and there score is in the 1200 range now. So next a few sergeants play the corporals (who are at the low end of their available point range) and they win the majority of the games. After all, they are sergeants, not lowly corporals! Now the sergeants have a boost in points and play a few Lieutenants who happen to win most of the points because they are the better players. This pattern is fairly simple and continues all the way to the top where the colonels and Birgadiers of this little world inherit the points from all of those missing new recruits.

It has always happened like this, and unless the scoring system is completely reconfigured it will continue to happen like this. As you add thousands and thousands of more players to this site, the base of privates and cadets and new recruits becomes quite large. The larger and firmer the base, the taller the tower which can stand upon it. And hence the members at the top of the scoreboard shoot toward infinity. Just very slowly

sully800 wrote:

chessplaya wrote:IF U ONLY PLAY THE HIGH RANKED GAMES THE LOW RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS NO MATTER WHAT THEY R ( LOW RANKS =1500 AND BELOW) AND THE HIGH RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS AS THEY R..AND THEN NO1 WILL BE ABLE TO GO 4000 OR 5000..... sorry for caps just had to do it...if the players dont change ur points wont change maybe it will go up for a bit...but then down ...u will lose to the same players which r the 200-300 how many they r i dont know leaving outside that circle 15000 players...now if u profit their points and put them inside that circle SCORES WILL DEFINETLY GO HIGHER!

Alright, everyone gather around and I will explain how the people at the top will continue to get higher and higher, no matter what the current system is.

As Chess said, if high rankers only played high rankers, how would new points be brought into the system? Yet, as others pointed out, high rankers stand to gain very little from playing low rankers, and yet they lose a lot. So how do the points get to the top?

Time.

Let's say people only played others that were + or - 200 points to them. That's a much more restricted range than we actually see, but that fact only makes the example better. So this month, perhaps 1000 new recruits join the game, half of them lose their first few games and never return. That's a net gain of perhaps 25,000 points into the system....yet they don't end up at the top of the scoreboard, instead the new corporals, earn them and there score is in the 1200 range now. So next a few sergeants play the corporals (who are at the low end of their available point range) and they win the majority of the games. After all, they are sergeants, not lowly corporals! Now the sergeants have a boost in points and play a few Lieutenants who happen to win most of the points because they are the better players. This pattern is fairly simple and continues all the way to the top where the colonels and Birgadiers of this little world inherit the points from all of those missing new recruits.

It has always happened like this, and unless the scoring system is completely reconfigured it will continue to happen like this. As you add thousands and thousands of more players to this site, the base of privates and cadets and new recruits becomes quite large. The larger and firmer the base, the taller the tower which can stand upon it. And hence the members at the top of the scoreboard shoot toward infinity. Just very slowly

no-one likes a smart-ass

sully800 wrote:

chessplaya wrote:IF U ONLY PLAY THE HIGH RANKED GAMES THE LOW RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS NO MATTER WHAT THEY R ( LOW RANKS =1500 AND BELOW) AND THE HIGH RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS AS THEY R..AND THEN NO1 WILL BE ABLE TO GO 4000 OR 5000..... sorry for caps just had to do it...if the players dont change ur points wont change maybe it will go up for a bit...but then down ...u will lose to the same players which r the 200-300 how many they r i dont know leaving outside that circle 15000 players...now if u profit their points and put them inside that circle SCORES WILL DEFINETLY GO HIGHER!

Alright, everyone gather around and I will explain how the people at the top will continue to get higher and higher, no matter what the current system is.

As Chess said, if high rankers only played high rankers, how would new points be brought into the system? Yet, as others pointed out, high rankers stand to gain very little from playing low rankers, and yet they lose a lot. So how do the points get to the top?

Time.

Let's say people only played others that were + or - 200 points to them. That's a much more restricted range than we actually see, but that fact only makes the example better. So this month, perhaps 1000 new recruits join the game, half of them lose their first few games and never return. That's a net gain of perhaps 25,000 points into the system....yet they don't end up at the top of the scoreboard, instead the new corporals, earn them and there score is in the 1200 range now. So next a few sergeants play the corporals (who are at the low end of their available point range) and they win the majority of the games. After all, they are sergeants, not lowly corporals! Now the sergeants have a boost in points and play a few Lieutenants who happen to win most of the points because they are the better players. This pattern is fairly simple and continues all the way to the top where the colonels and Birgadiers of this little world inherit the points from all of those missing new recruits.

It has always happened like this, and unless the scoring system is completely reconfigured it will continue to happen like this. As you add thousands and thousands of more players to this site, the base of privates and cadets and new recruits becomes quite large. The larger and firmer the base, the taller the tower which can stand upon it. And hence the members at the top of the scoreboard shoot toward infinity. Just very slowly

Yeah, that's true. But considering the Brigadeer:Colonel:Major:Captain:etc. ratio, it'll take some times until we start seeing several Generals and Field Marshalls. The process is slow, yet it WILL happen.

look heres how it really work you play you win you get points its that simple. A high rank player may stand to lose more points in a game to a low rank player but that only happens if he loses. And if he loses to a private he should expect to go down.

if a colonel wins a game even against a cook he gains points simple as that he may only gain 12 instead of 30 but he still gains points and he shouldnt expect to gain as many points beating a newbie as an expierenced player. Is it as easy to beat maniac as it is a new recruit ? no then why would you expect to gain the same reward for winning.

Your rank is supposed to mean your skilled and you should be expected to defend that rank . Muhammad Ali fought over 50 title defenses and not once did he ever tell Howard Cossell he wasnt gonna fight this contender cause he stood to lose more (the championship) than he stood to gain (some more money)

You higher rank player seem to think that once you obtain rank you should be entitled to keep it forever without having to defend it. You protect it like its your retirement fund and make it much harder for anyone else new to obtain the rank than it was for you.

Tell me were there colonel games when YOU were a private ? If you deserve the rank you will be able to defend it in a fair game and you wont have to hide and only play players who you can gain more points from than you can lose.

I just won a game...every single player was ranked lower than me and guess what MY SCORE WENT UP....not as much as it would have if i had beat 2 generals 3 colonels and a major......but I shouldnt expect it to I beat a couple sgts a couple corpals a private and a question mark and then end result was my score went up 66 points

I should be expected to win this game and therefore i should expext to get 66 points in a 7 player game and if i beat a couple of staff officers my score should go up 100+ because I shouldnt be expected to win that game

What are you afraid of ??? that someone might beat you in an honest game ??? are you so insecure that if you weren't an ELITE player your life would suddenly lose meaning ? DEFEND YOUR RANK DONT PROTECT IT


rich

sully800 wrote:
That's what they said about 3000 and 4000 points as well! I think Blitz hit 4000 way earlier than anyone would have ever expected. He was ahead of his time, but if you look at the people who have gotten above 3000, you will see more and more are doing it and the scores at the top are still ever increasing. If you don't think 5000 will be reached, I think you have a limited view of the future. And besides, why not set a goal that no one has reached yet? It might take some work, but 5000 will be reached. Believe it.

I don't agree with you. Blitz managed to reach the 4000 mark only for a short time and then he came tumbling down. Also note that to reach that mark he used to play only triples games.

I believe he stretched the points curve to the limit by using that technique. Personally I find that there is a kind of elastic limit to the points that one can garner. I am stuck at the 2100 mark for example...can't go past that because when I lose a game I have to win four to make up for it. Perhaps I have reached my limit or perhaps I can get lucky and get some more points in the future.

However I am sure I won't be reaching 5000. I think Blitz has already gone beyond the elastic limit with his 4000 points because of the technique he used. Anyone else who plays different styles of the game will never make it that far, let alone reach 5000 points.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

sully800 wrote:
That's what they said about 3000 and 4000 points as well! I think Blitz hit 4000 way earlier than anyone would have ever expected. He was ahead of his time, but if you look at the people who have gotten above 3000, you will see more and more are doing it and the scores at the top are still ever increasing. If you don't think 5000 will be reached, I think you have a limited view of the future. And besides, why not set a goal that no one has reached yet? It might take some work, but 5000 will be reached. Believe it.

I don't agree with you. Blitz managed to reach the 4000 mark only for a short time and then he came tumbling down. Also note that to reach that mark he used to play only triples games.

I believe he stretched the points curve to the limit by using that technique. Personally I find that there is a kind of elastic limit to the points that one can garner. I am stuck at the 2100 mark for example...can't go past that because when I lose a game I have to win four to make up for it. Perhaps I have reached my limit or perhaps I can get lucky and get some more points in the future.

However I am sure I won't be reaching 5000. I think Blitz has already gone beyond the elastic limit with his 4000 points because of the technique he used. Anyone else who plays different styles of the game will never make it that far, let alone reach 5000 points.

I think you are right that theres an elastic limit to how far you can get. But the limit is really how far you can get above your fellow players. When Blitz got to 4300 he was over 1000 points ahead of anyone else which makes it very hard to maintain. But now there are way more people in the 2700-3400 point range than there used to be, and that will continue to grow. As it does, it will make it easier for people to stay in the 3500 point range, and that pattern keeps continuing. That's why I said Blitz was ahead of his time, because no one else was close to him.

hey Sully... don't you need to change your sig?

richnpoor wrote:look heres how it really work you play you win you get points its that simple. A high rank player may stand to lose more points in a game to a low rank player but that only happens if he loses. And if he loses to a private he should expect to go down.

if a colonel wins a game even against a cook he gains points simple as that he may only gain 12 instead of 30 but he still gains points and he shouldnt expect to gain as many points beating a newbie as an experienced player. Is it as easy to beat mainiac as it is a new recruit ? no then why would you expect to gain the same reward for winning.

Your rank is supposed to mean your skilled and you should be expected to defend that rank . Muhammad Ali fought over 50 title defenses and not once did he ever tell Howard Cossell he wasnt gonna fight this contender cause he stood to lose more (the championship) than he stood to gain (some more money)

You higher rank player seem to think that once you obtain rank you should be entitled to keep it forever without having to defend it. You protect it like its your retirement fund and make it much harder for anyone else new to obtain the rank than it was for you.

Tell me were there colonel games when YOU were a private ? If you deserve the rank you will be able to defend it in a fair game and you wont have to hide and only play players who you can gain more points from than you can lose.

I just won a game...every single player was ranked lower than me and guess what MY SCORE WENT UP....not as much as it would have if i had beat 2 generals 3 colonels and a major......but I shouldnt expect it to I beat a couple sgts a couple corpals a private and a question mark and then end result was my score went up 66 points

I should be expected to win this game and therefore i should expext to get 66 points in a 7 player game and if i beat a couple of staff officers my score should go up 100+ because I shouldnt be expected to win that game

What are you afraid of ??? that someone might beat you in an honest game ??? are you so insecure that if you weren't an ELITE player your life would suddenly lose meaning ? DEFEND YOUR RANK DONT PROTECT IT


rich

rich, go play the bottom of the scoreboard for 20 games...tell me what happens to your score...by your theory, they are so bad that you will walk away with points....let me know how it turns out for you....luck has a major influence on this game, and no matter how good you are, you cant win them all If it were chess, the top player could beat the bottom 75% 99% of the time...in risk its more like 75%...and if you have to win 90% to win points, its a losing game

stop your incessant whining that higher ranks dont play lower ranks...ive countered you on this many times....all you are is a player that cant get there and is jealous....you are jealous....the same way people are jealous if someone is poor, and then is rich...do you give your money away to people who have less money than you...of course not...if you gave it away to everyone that had less than you...you wouldnt have any any more....you want the points earn them the same way the higher ranks did...nothings changed...in fact, its easier to get them now because there are more out there

and once again...higher ranks play higher ranks because its an even point spread, but more importantly, there is almost no drama...no neg feedbacks for nothing, no suicide attacks out of the blue or just silly moves that ends the game for no good reason...no secret alliances, no multis....just pure strategy against great guys and gals...

If you ever do get good enough and reach enough points to play the top ranks, you will enjoy it and see what I mean

I can play with more or less whoever I want, but I dont expect players with 1000 more points to want to play me right now...just because they have way more points, doesnt mean they are that much better or luckier..it means over the long haul they are better at getting points which is a game in and of itself...in any individual game, anyone of any skill can win...ive seen absolute newbies win with no idea what they were really doing win because the dice and cards just gave it to them...it doesnt matter how good you are, you cant beat that...

you and my dad beat cd and I, it was your first doubles game, and my dad has played about 600 games, and i dont think hes ever been over 1200 points...CD and I are polished teammates, and have brought down some of the toughest doubles and couples on here...but on your first try you beat us, and there was absolutely nothing we could do to stop it...was it a fun game? sure, but your scores were so low, and ours so high that we lost 40 or 50 points which means we would have had to beat you 4 or 5 more times in a row, just to break even...possible, but not easy, and certainly not the way to gain points....

again...play the bottom of the scoreboard...its the same idea, except it should be easier since the worst players are there, where as in the middle of the scoreboard, the skill level is still very high, just not the points....but if you do, you wont be reaching 2000 anytime soon...

there is no player on here that would want to play 20 doubles against me at my current score...no one is good enough to walk away with points from it...win more games sure, win enough to cover the point spread, just not possible...and I dont blame them for not wanting to try

so stop your complaining about the higher ranks...they can play what they want...if you want to play them...work for your points and you can play them in the 2000 point games at will...all you need to do is get 2000 points....if you cant do that...you arent good enough to play them...so spend your energy getting better, not asking for charity...

WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!! AAFitz

Well said, fitz.

I particularly like this bit:

AAFitz wrote:higher ranks play higher ranks because its an even point spread, but more importantly, there is almost no drama...no neg feedbacks for nothing, no suicide attacks out of the blue or just silly moves that ends the game for no good reason...no secret alliances, no multis....just pure strategy against great guys and gals...

Sound familiar, rich?

Big Yuma Ripper wrote:WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!! AAFitz

Yep - got to say that was brilliant - one of the few really long rants that I've entirely read and talk about sound reasoning - I couldn't even punch holes in it if I tried my hardest.

Big Yuma Ripper wrote:WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!! AAFitz

thanks, little over-the-top maybe, but his is equally so, and I know he's just having fun with it a bit too, as am I

sully800 wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:I don't agree with you. Blitz managed to reach the 4000 mark only for a short time and then he came tumbling down. Also note that to reach that mark he used to play only triples games.

I believe he stretched the points curve to the limit by using that technique. Personally I find that there is a kind of elastic limit to the points that one can garner. I am stuck at the 2100 mark for example...can't go past that because when I lose a game I have to win four to make up for it. Perhaps I have reached my limit or perhaps I can get lucky and get some more points in the future.

However I am sure I won't be reaching 5000. I think Blitz has already gone beyond the elastic limit with his 4000 points because of the technique he used. Anyone else who plays different styles of the game will never make it that far, let alone reach 5000 points.

I think you are right that theres an elastic limit to how far you can get. But the limit is really how far you can get above your fellow players. When Blitz got to 4300 he was over 1000 points ahead of anyone else which makes it very hard to maintain. But now there are way more people in the 2700-3400 point range than there used to be, and that will continue to grow. As it does, it will make it easier for people to stay in the 3500 point range, and that pattern keeps continuing. That's why I said Blitz was ahead of his time, because no one else was close to him.

You have a point there. I had not considered that variable. However even considering that, I think 5000 is still a bit out of reach. Anyway I guess time will tell.