Conquer Club

17- juventino Feb 6, 2007 (reached in 329 days)

I am slow..... taking a point here, and another there.

Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

AAFitz wrote:you realize robinette is going to post a link about vampires now right???

sigh... this is the 3rd time this has come up in a conversation this week, so I know all about vampires and bloodbaths, and the misconceptions that exisit with this topic.

You see, Fitz, the whole idea of the bloodbath myth coincided with the vampire scares that haunted Europe in the early 18th century, reaching even into educated and scientific circles. I am not making this up!

Anyway, the strong connection between the bloodbath myth and vampire myth was not made until the 1970s. Whoa... go back... did you catch that.. that is not a typo, it was the 1970's... Interestingly enough the first connections were made to promote works of fiction by linking them to the already commercially successful Dracula story.

Thus a 1970 movie based on Báthory and the bloodbath myth was titled Countess Dracula. Really... I am not making any of this up...

well okay, I made up the part about it coming up in other conversations this week. hee hee

Anyway, I have no real interest in vampires... but I did attend Anne Rice's premiere of Lestat, openning night in San Francisco in 2005. So I think that qualifies me as an expert!

YOU THE MAN BLITZ YOU THE MAN

sully800 wrote:Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

just for curiousity, no worries sully, that is coming soon to a theatre near you, another point is when you over 3500, it dont matter if you play 500 games or 1000, your rank will stay close to the same even if you play 500 more, perhaps go down, lol, since there is only a few over 3K, so in the beginning the games are important but not after you played a ton and your rank is as high as it can go, not much else to do but drop down a ton, this is evidenced by the majority not being able to maintain 3000, reaching 3K is very difficult to do or was, but keep it there is 10x harder as many drop over 500 points in a weeks time, seen it over and over.

Okay okay okay.

There used to be some debate over who was the best #1 of all time. I always thought it was weidsun/kununoki/melinguras/clio, even if he/she/it was a multi. Then for a while there was controversy over the #1s, 'cause they only played doubles/triples. So no one could agree, although a lot of people went with personality. Pilate was a hell of a nice guy, if I recall right.

Well, the debate is over. Nobody needs to debate anymore. Blitz is the best there is, was, and probably ever will be. He wins every game he's in no matter what setup it is, and he's too damn nice to hate for it. What the hell? There's no point in even trying to beat that. It's over baby. Close the site down, there's no need to continue.

Congratulations, Blitzaholic.

sully800 wrote:Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

I agree completly!
Maybe you could help me to graph this...

No, really... I'm not joking... I was thinking we should create a list like the discussion we had about Roger Bannister... but it would be really really cool if it could show the oddity of the points curve.

I'll get back to you on this after getting some lists together, okay?

Robinette wrote:

AAFitz wrote:you realize robinette is going to post a link about vampires now right???

sigh... this is the 3rd time this has come up in a conversation this week, so I know all about vampires and bloodbaths, and the misconceptions that exisit with this topic.

You see, Fitz, the whole idea of the bloodbath myth coincided with the vampire scares that haunted Europe in the early 18th century, reaching even into educated and scientific circles. I am not making this up!

Anyway, the strong connection between the bloodbath myth and vampire myth was not made until the 1970s. Whoa... go back... did you catch that.. that is not a typo, it was the 1970's... Interestingly enough the first connections were made to promote works of fiction by linking them to the already commercially successful Dracula story.

Thus a 1970 movie based on Báthory and the bloodbath myth was titled Countess Dracula. Really... I am not making any of this up...

well okay, I made up the part about it coming up in other conversations this week. hee hee

Anyway, I have no real interest in vampires... but I did attend Anne Rice's premiere of Lestat, openning night in San Francisco in 2005. So I think that qualifies me as an expert!

now, while i knew youd post on the subject, i more expected you do do some research and post a link....i didnt really suspect you knew it off the top of your head....kind of disturbing...

and for the record, blitz authorized this obvious spamming of his thread

Blitzaholic wrote:

sully800 wrote:Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

just for curiousity, no worries sully, that is coming soon to a theatre near you, another point is when you over 3500, it dont matter if you play 500 games or 1000, your rank will stay close to the same even if you play 500 more, perhaps go down, lol, since there is only a few over 3K, so in the beginning the games are important but not after you played a ton and your rank is as high as it can go, not much else to do but drop down a ton, this is evidenced by the majority not being able to maintain 3000, reaching 3K is very difficult to do or was, but keep it there is 10x harder as many drop over 500 points in a weeks time, seen it over and over.

sigh.... Why do always have to be right... almost makes me want to stop playing std esc games...

Robinette wrote: sigh.... Why do always have to be right... almost makes me want to stop playing std esc games...

you dont have to stop playing them, you just have to start winning them again

Blitzaholic wrote:

sully800 wrote:Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

just for curiousity, no worries sully, that is coming soon to a theatre near you, another point is when you over 3500, it dont matter if you play 500 games or 1000, your rank will stay close to the same even if you play 500 more, perhaps go down, lol, since there is only a few over 3K, so in the beginning the games are important but not after you played a ton and your rank is as high as it can go, not much else to do but drop down a ton, this is evidenced by the majority not being able to maintain 3000, reaching 3K is very difficult to do or was, but keep it there is 10x harder as many drop over 500 points in a weeks time, seen it over and over.

Oh, I certainly agree that staying above 3000 for long periods of time must be extremely hard...just look at NUKE and Robinette- both reached 3000 in a much fewer number of games than anyone else, and then quickly dropped down a few hundred points. I'm sure they will rise back up again though. Everyone sees some huge point fluctuations over time so staying high is very impressive.

But anyway, the reason I said it should be # of games instead of # of days is because someone who plays twice as many games at a time wouldn't be better in my book than a person who reached 3000 just after them in # of days. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because you can't go back and calculate how many games the person had when they first reached 3000 (at least not with the ease of how many days it took them)

Robinette wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

sully800 wrote:Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

just for curiousity, no worries sully, that is coming soon to a theatre near you, another point is when you over 3500, it dont matter if you play 500 games or 1000, your rank will stay close to the same even if you play 500 more, perhaps go down, lol, since there is only a few over 3K, so in the beginning the games are important but not after you played a ton and your rank is as high as it can go, not much else to do but drop down a ton, this is evidenced by the majority not being able to maintain 3000, reaching 3K is very difficult to do or was, but keep it there is 10x harder as many drop over 500 points in a weeks time, seen it over and over.

sigh.... Why do youalways have to be right... almost makes me want to stop playing std esc games...

Robin, i wasnt always trying to be right LOL, i do try to be honest as I can based from my experience and wit, but my lady, all on here know you are awesome. mix it up robin, play a variety girlfriend, he he

sully800 wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

sully800 wrote:Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

just for curiousity, no worries sully, that is coming soon to a theatre near you, another point is when you over 3500, it dont matter if you play 500 games or 1000, your rank will stay close to the same even if you play 500 more, perhaps go down, lol, since there is only a few over 3K, so in the beginning the games are important but not after you played a ton and your rank is as high as it can go, not much else to do but drop down a ton, this is evidenced by the majority not being able to maintain 3000, reaching 3K is very difficult to do or was, but keep it there is 10x harder as many drop over 500 points in a weeks time, seen it over and over.

Oh, I certainly agree that staying above 3000 for long periods of time must be extremely hard...just look at NUKE and Robinette- both reached 3000 in a much fewer number of games than anyone else, and then quickly dropped down a few hundred points. I'm sure they will rise back up again though. Everyone sees some huge point fluctuations over time so staying high is very impressive.

But anyway, the reason I said it should be # of games instead of # of days is because someone who plays twice as many games at a time wouldn't be better in my book than a person who reached 3000 just after them in # of days. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because you can't go back and calculate how many games the person had when they first reached 3000 (at least not with the ease of how many days it took them)

OH? but Robin and I came up with something Sully very colse, and Robin really needs you to help her with the games, it is a very close estimate of the games, and we need a graph, could you help Robin with this, I think she has the numbers. Check your pm's and I get her to pm you a sketch, then perhaps you could graph it in here, TY sully

ZawBanjito wrote:Okay okay okay.

There used to be some debate over who was the best #1 of all time. I always thought it was weidsun/kununoki/melinguras/clio, even if he/she/it was a multi. Then for a while there was controversy over the #1s, 'cause they only played doubles/triples. So no one could agree, although a lot of people went with personality. Pilate was a hell of a nice guy, if I recall right.

Well, the debate is over. Nobody needs to debate anymore. Blitz is the best there is, was, and probably ever will be. He wins every game he's in no matter what setup it is, and he's too damn nice to hate for it. What the hell? There's no point in even trying to beat that. It's over baby. Close the site down, there's no need to continue.

Congratulations, Blitzaholic.

TY zAw, now stop embarassing me.

sully800 wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

sully800 wrote:Why does it matter how many days it took? How many games it took is a much more important criterion I think.

just for curiousity, no worries sully, that is coming soon to a theatre near you, another point is when you over 3500, it dont matter if you play 500 games or 1000, your rank will stay close to the same even if you play 500 more, perhaps go down, lol, since there is only a few over 3K, so in the beginning the games are important but not after you played a ton and your rank is as high as it can go, not much else to do but drop down a ton, this is evidenced by the majority not being able to maintain 3000, reaching 3K is very difficult to do or was, but keep it there is 10x harder as many drop over 500 points in a weeks time, seen it over and over.

Oh, I certainly agree that staying above 3000 for long periods of time must be extremely hard...just look at NUKE and Robinette- both reached 3000 in a much fewer number of games than anyone else, and then quickly dropped down a few hundred points. I'm sure they will rise back up again though. Everyone sees some huge point fluctuations over time so staying high is very impressive.

But anyway, the reason I said it should be # of games instead of # of days is because someone who plays twice as many games at a time wouldn't be better in my book than a person who reached 3000 just after them in # of days. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because you can't go back and calculate how many games the person had when they first reached 3000 (at least not with the ease of how many days it took them)

actually youd be surprised the effect of playing many at a time can have

when i play tons at a time with a lot of variety, which i like, it really is tough to switch gears and adjust the strategy...i recently had a few of every type and many maps...when i completely focus on just gaining points, i play more of one or two types and have a much easier time of winning.....i swear, i had a more instinctive knowlege of the game when i started, i was playing so many at one point i felt like i forgot how to play....

if you look at a lot of the 1000 plus players...with the exception of a few, and certainly blitz...he maintains as well as anyone ive seen on here...you will see some huge drops in score...but that sometimes can just be a factor of them all cashing at once....i have 8 gray squares right now, so im in for an adjustment when they cash...if they all end now thats a 200 to 250 point drop instantly

but one of those doesnt count...its on circvs svximvs....theres no way to win on that board

i see i partially misunderstood your thread...ill just leave this here as it is...but i know its not exactly on topic

they should create a new raking for people with your score

lVlaniac wrote:they should create a new ranking for people with your score

I think Sully is in the process right now lVlaniac, it is a good idea, think he is making some other ranks as well. We just need to be patient, they are all working hard and are very busy, but it is coming, I think it will improve the site with the different ranks and more of them.

juventino wrote:17- juventino Feb 6, 2007 (reached in 329 days)

I am slow..... taking a point here, and another there.

Juventino, LOL, you are only 1 of 17 out of the 20,000 plus that have come and gone on this site, what you did is a great accomplishment. be proud

cmeb4udie wrote:Well done my friend......If anyone should be there it is you. Kudos

yep, ty mike aka cmeb4udie, we team up soon bro

congrats blitz.

GloriousL wrote:Ever since I joined this site sometime early September I cannot recall anyone else but Blitz occupying the top spot on the scoreboard, if there ever was, it sure was temporary!

To make it top 100 in a 12000+ field of players is pretty good. To mark the No 1 spot for so long is outstanding!
I admire your playing skills and the humble and friendly way in which you interact with your fellow players.

All the best.

Keep it up Bro!

ty gloriousl, yes I have had it for vast majority of time, my ole friend eye84free did pass me me for a day or two awhile back, he fierce competitor.

now i think well you must have extremly good luck to win so much games and win them to get the 4000 points

ok blitz you need to let me have some of those points i got for ya 8 points for a victory is not cutting it lol spread the wealth around what ya there p lol

Capt Killroy wrote:ok blitz you need to let me have some of those points i got for ya 8 points for a victory is not cutting it lol spread the wealth around what ya there p lol

XD there are just 8 points you could win a game

Great job Blitz, you kick my ass every time you play me so it was just a matter of time before you reached the big 4000.