Conquer Club

I have been playing Risk for a long time, but I am fairly new here. I notice that many players with high ranks have played a large percentage of their games one-on-one. To me, you are not really playing Risk at all without a minimum of 4 players. Luck and starting position rather than strategy become much too big a factor. Play one-on-one if you wish, but I would like to see no ratings assigned and no ranks earned for any games played with less than 4 players. It would be a fascinating exercise to see how the rankings would change if games with 3 or fewer players were eliminated from the ratings. There is much (way too much) opportunity to manipulate the rankings and points by playing one-on-one games. I see players with winning percentages that are astoundingly high and simply not possible for "normal" risk games (4 players or more). Check it out - many high ranking players have played a large number of one-on-ones to inflate their rank. I don't believe the high ranking players are better game players than most -- they are using the system to inflate their ego and their scores.

Concise description:

Have all games with less than 4 players NOT count for any points or rankings.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Better and more fair rankings and more accurate representation of players real skill. Risk is a multi-player game. Always has been.

I don't think we gain such an advantage for a 1v1 game .For one if I lose a game to a Private .I'll lose 40 + points .Secondly if I win a game to a cook I gain 4 points..The system has an on-board function that really works already. So this idea is pointless .
No offence

Strider53 wrote:To me, you are not really playing Risk at all without a minimum of 4 players.

This isn't actually a Risk website. Risk is the foundation but it is much more. Starting position may be worth alot on some maps but on many of the custom maps (see feudal war) starting position is irrelevant. On maps like these 1 on 1 ranking makes sense.

KoE_Sirius wrote:I don't think we gain such an advantage for a 1v1 game .For one if I lose a game to a Private .I'll lose 40 + points .Secondly if I win a game to a cook I gain 4 points..The system has an on-board function that really works already. So this idea is pointless .
No offence

Totaly agree with you Koe Sirius, 1v1 games are very risky for a high ranked player, because a cook can join, and he has nothing to lose at all, or 4 points wich is nothing against the 40 points that the other player might lose

Hmmmm, interesting. The three people who have replied to my suggestion are exactly those who fit my description of playing a significant number of 1 on 1 games and have inflated ratings and rank as a result ... and they all object to my idea (surprised anyone?). My point is thus precisely supported.

My suggestion should be seriously considered.

Well...ok, I agree with 1v1 being "luckier". But, luck doesnt help me though. Given that all 1v1 games are decided only on luck, and I play a lot of those games, I should expect to win 50% of them. I am amongst the top 5% of the players in Conquer Club and given that my opponents, on average, have a lower score than me I would lose more points on every loss than I would gain on each win. So, according to your assumptions, 1v1's should not inflate the scores of high ranked players.

In reality, I believe that there is an aspect of skill to it. But I still feel that high ranked players are disadvantaged playing 1v1s. Two examples to illustrate my point:

-- 74 of my 557 games are 1v1, and I have lost 258 points playing them.

-- BENJIKAT IS DEAD, who is a brigadier, has lost over 1000 points playing 1v1s despite having a win rate of 80%+.

I play 1v1s when I am bored. And believe it or not, I have sworn many times that I will stop playing these. In most cases, they require much more attention than other game types. Ben plays them, because he loves them.

I can assure you ... this won't even be considered ...

FabledIntegral wrote:I can assure you ... this won't even be considered ...

Hey, I'm just floating an idea and suggestion which I sincerely believe has merit. I know the decision isn't up to me, but the community and the operators of this site. I wasn't aware it was up to you FabledIntegral.

Strider53 wrote:Hmmmm, interesting. The three people who have replied to my suggestion are exactly those who fit my description of playing a significant number of 1 on 1 games and have inflated ratings and rank as a result ... and they all object to my idea (surprised anyone?). My point is thus precisely supported.

Your logic is a little flawed here Strider ...
You argue that because players who would be directly affected by your suggestion are responding to object that this supports your idea.
Let's suppose that a suggestion is made that all players whose names begin with S lose double points when they lose a game. Now, regardless of the merits of the idea, I think you'll agree with me that players with names beginning with S are likely to be fairly heavily represented in those objecting to the idea.

I'm not taking up a position for or against your suggestion, just pointing out that you're going to need a better argument

Strider53 wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:I can assure you ... this won't even be considered ...

Hey, I'm just floating an idea and suggestion which I sincerely believe has merit. I know the decision isn't up to me, but the community and the operators of this site. I wasn't aware it was up to you FabledIntegral.

I doubt more than 10% of people would follow this idea. A game is a game. Stupid just because YOU feel how "RISK" SHOULD be played, that it should somehow carry over to the point system. What about maps that play better with only 3 people on it? Do they become useless? I just think it's a terribly dumb idea.

This idea does not work.

Here's an example of why the OP is wrong. I play a lot of 1v1 games (as well as a lot of other games). My score is 2106, but when I run the map rank to check my results in 1v1 games, I get approximately 58% wins (better than average), but I have lost over 1100 points, in total, from 1v1 games. As a player's score goes up, it becomes more difficult to gain points by playing 1v1. The scoring system, in place, ensures that.