Conquer Club

iAmCaffeine wrote:nothing, but why even make that comment in the first place? "if someone can play hard maps that means they can easy maps" like ok, great? nobody said otherwise. just a dumb comment.

iAmCaffeine wrote:it's not him being a map specialist though, it's just him taking advantage of the fact that he can win 97% of his games on that map and be +3000 from doing it. that doesn't mean he sucks at other maps, which is what being a specialist suggests. there's a difference.

You call players specialists because they master difficult maps and then continue to play them to get points, rather then risk points in 1v1 on classic where drop/dice can easily influence a game far more than strategy and intelligence. Then when someone points out that just because they play difficult maps over simple maps doesn't mean they don't know them, you attack their comment.

In fact, this 'map specialist' conqueror we have has played 271 Dass Schloss games, a little over 13% of this players total games. How is someone a map specialist with a 13% play rate?

maybe try antarctica...

riskllama wrote:maybe try antarctica...

175, less than Dass Schloss?

*shrugs*

Kotaro wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:nothing, but why even make that comment in the first place? "if someone can play hard maps that means they can easy maps" like ok, great? nobody said otherwise. just a dumb comment.

iAmCaffeine wrote:it's not him being a map specialist though, it's just him taking advantage of the fact that he can win 97% of his games on that map and be +3000 from doing it. that doesn't mean he sucks at other maps, which is what being a specialist suggests. there's a difference.

You call players specialists because they master difficult maps and then continue to play them to get points, rather then risk points in 1v1 on classic where drop/dice can easily influence a game far more than strategy and intelligence. Then when someone points out that just because they play difficult maps over simple maps doesn't mean they don't know them, you attack their comment.

In fact, this 'map specialist' conqueror we have has played 271 Dass Schloss games, a little over 13% of this players total games. How is someone a map specialist with a 13% play rate?

I mean, in 2020, he played a whopping 136 games. 54% were on Das Schloss. So. I dunno. That's a pretty big %.

iAmCaffeine wrote:nothing, but why even make that comment in the first place? "if someone can play hard maps that means they can easy maps" like ok, great? nobody said otherwise. just a dumb comment.

You did say otherwise.

You tried to draw a distinction between people who specialize because they want points, and people who do it for some other reason. Presumably, because they only know a limited selection of maps. I'm saying that's nonsense. Points is the only reason people specialize. They don't have some mental block against playing other maps, they just want points.

iAmCaffeine wrote:it's not him being a map specialist though, it's just him taking advantage of the fact that he can win 97% of his games on that map and be +3000 from doing it. that doesn't mean he sucks at other maps, which is what being a specialist suggests. there's a difference.

Dukasaur wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:nothing, but why even make that comment in the first place? "if someone can play hard maps that means they can easy maps" like ok, great? nobody said otherwise. just a dumb comment.

You did say otherwise.

You tried to draw a distinction between people who specialize because they want points, and people who do it for some other reason. Presumably, because they only know a limited selection of maps. I'm saying that's nonsense. Points is the only reason people specialize. They don't have some mental block against playing other maps, they just want points.

iAmCaffeine wrote:it's not him being a map specialist though, it's just him taking advantage of the fact that he can win 97% of his games on that map and be +3000 from doing it. that doesn't mean he sucks at other maps, which is what being a specialist suggests. there's a difference.

context.

king herpes for example, regularly would play any kind of game, map and setting and did so for years. he actually did it whilst also posting insane numbers on certain maps. you can theoretically say that others can do that too, but they haven't and won't, so you don't have evidence just hypotheticals.

your point was that people who master conquer rome can play luxembourg.. i mean that's just dense but mastering conquer rome doesn't mean they can also master spanish armada. playing 1-2 maps to a high level isn't impressive. playing every map is.

now does anyone wanna post something that isn't stupid as f*ck or shall we just continue highlighting the clowns that duk and kotaro want to be?

Dukasaur wrote: You tried to draw a distinction between people who specialize because they want points, and people who do it for some other reason. Presumably, because they only know a limited selection of maps. I'm saying that's nonsense. Points is the only reason people specialize. They don't have some mental block against playing other maps, they just want points.

Here I have to disagree Duk. I have met and played some of these people and I think they don't branch out because they are afraid. Afraid of looking stupid as they learn a new map. Afraid they won't look good outside of a know map and settings. I think they really do have a mental block against playing other maps. I believe the mental block is that they really aren't that good.

Different strokes for different folks, playing the same maps n setts is so boring to make it to the top of the points list but fair play, just saying the top player 'conqueror' could be perhaps voted in once a year with better credentials than a cubic squared rhombus. That conqueror then has a special avatar, has to play in full military uniform loses double the pts and gets systematically bummed by something resembling the quite disturbing nut shot scott avatar

iAmCaffeine wrote:blitz is overrated

he left before iamcaffeine account was ever created though

betiko wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:blitz is overrated

he left before iamcaffeine account was ever created though

let me bait for drama wtf

Kotaro wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:nothing, but why even make that comment in the first place? "if someone can play hard maps that means they can easy maps" like ok, great? nobody said otherwise. just a dumb comment.

iAmCaffeine wrote:it's not him being a map specialist though, it's just him taking advantage of the fact that he can win 97% of his games on that map and be +3000 from doing it. that doesn't mean he sucks at other maps, which is what being a specialist suggests. there's a difference.

You call players specialists because they master difficult maps and then continue to play them to get points, rather then risk points in 1v1 on classic where drop/dice can easily influence a game far more than strategy and intelligence. Then when someone points out that just because they play difficult maps over simple maps doesn't mean they don't know them, you attack their comment.

In fact, this 'map specialist' conqueror we have has played 271 Dass Schloss games, a little over 13% of this players total games. How is someone a map specialist with a 13% play rate?

13% out of 250+ maps... which should all average less than 0,4%. Then I guess there are at least 50 difficult maps where skill can have some kind of importance, because you are obviously right about outweighting randomness otherwise it's impossible to thrive. Nevertheless, the site offers tons of game variants and maps where you can outweight randomness by being good and taking advantage of all details possible. It's part of the quest.
Everybody seems to a gree that a true conqueror should be the master jack of all trades and not a one trick pony with unlimited patience or master of a loophole or advantage taking on noobs.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

betiko wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:blitz is overrated

he left before iamcaffeine account was ever created though

let me bait for drama wtf

well it's true... it's like if you tell me Alfredo DiStefano was overrated and you never watched or witnessed football from that era. What kind of dumb comment is it?

so just give josko conqueror until someone better comes along?

where does it say conqueror has to be the best player? it just says highest score. this way people can challenge for the highest score to be conqueror. not many people can challenge to be the best and a jack of all trades and recognised as one of the greatest players on the site. you gotta be realistic.

betiko wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

betiko wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:blitz is overrated

he left before iamcaffeine account was ever created though

let me bait for drama wtf

well it's true... it's like if you tell me Alfredo DiStefano was overrated and you never watched or witnessed football from that era. What kind of dumb comment is it?

did you read what i said or

general cod wrote:That conqueror then has a special avatar, has to play in full military uniform loses double the pts and gets systematically bummed by something resembling the quite disturbing nut shot scott avatar

hey now. that's a self portrait...

betiko wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:blitz is overrated

he left before iamcaffeine account was ever created though

This makes sense to me.

Dukasaur wrote:What you guys are saying is trivially true, but essentially meaningless.

Of course if someone can master Conquer Rome or USA 2.1, they can also master Luxembourg.

Map specialists always specialize in a difficult map so they can farm points from people who don't get it. I'm sure that 100% of the time it's true that they could play easier maps if they chose to, but they don't. They don't want to expose their points on a map where the average person has a chance to beat them.

Of course it does, you’re a Champion

Spoiler

This post may have been EDITED BY TeeGee

You again show your true colors as a hateful and hate-filled person who constantly throws out diatribes and vitriol.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Of course it does, you’re a champion

i didn't realise the word champion would cause that much upset.

I don't know if many people are that impressed by the player being ranked number 1 anyway.

We all know how the scoring system works and I don't think anyone would stay in the top for long if they just joined random games.

I'm one of those people who joined chess.com after watching Queen's Gambit (lolz) and there is so many ways to create a better gaming experience on there. You can play games that won't affect your rating which is awesome. You're also able to look for games in the same point range as you are.

I guess my point is, you might be annoyed at how someone gets there by abusing a working strategy but the system is also encouraging it.

And my basic premise stands uncontested. I suggest that even IamCaff believes it.

jusplay4fun wrote:You again show your true colors as a hateful and hate-filled person who constantly throws out diatribes and vitriol.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Of course it does, you’re a champion

you ok boo?

Being No.1 on the pts list does not mean 'the conqueror' of all - though really it does, nice contradiction. I vote for Josko, plays all sorts of games/tourneys is very difficult to beat and consistent. He's the clear conqueror imo. I played KH a few times obv long time ago and yeh he was decent, although he reminded me of the kind of old sod who lives in his local pub, drinks ale and bitter, and eyeballs newcomers to his realm with a disillusioned sense of grandeur, used to play with Krapht1 remember him?? Another good player but could've been KH twin.

IamCaffeine loves an argument, so give a dog a bone.... I can relate to that and although he plays too many games i am very fond of him ( gently strokes head, whispering sweet nothings). Not sure 'Ape' is that offensive, i used to work with a guy we called 'silverback' as in the Gorilla.