More "proof" that the scoring system is rigged

[tracedout]

If Conquer Club wants to throttle question mark/low rank abuse they should just have scores round down. As it is, you get a whole point from a player if the 20*theirscore/yourscore formula has a decimal place. so if you get 5.01 points from a player, you actually will be credited with 6 points.

If players are consistently winning 5 points per player, rounding down will cut their win points by just under 20% to 4 points per player. And should they lose to such a player, then they'll likely still lose 80 points instead of 81.

And this only really makes a big difference if scoring differential is wide - closer it is to even, less % of points are cut.

It's like the fraction of penny scheme in office space - each fraction in itself isn't worth much, but over thousands of transactions(games) over hundreds of days, they add up.

[AAFitz]

If Conquer Club wants to throttle question mark/low rank abuse they should just have scores round down. As it is, you get a whole point from a player if the 20*theirscore/yourscore formula has a decimal place. so if you get 5.01 points from a player, you actually will be credited with 6 points.

If players are consistently winning 5 points per player, removing rounding up will cut their win points by just under 20% to 4 points per player.

And this only really makes a big difference if scoring differential is wide - closer it is to even, less % of points are cut.

It's like the fraction of penny scheme in office space - each fraction in itself isn't worth much, but over thousands of transactions(games) over hundreds of days, they add up.

an interesting point, but the newbies would have their points garnished too.. but I suppose winning 76 is the same as winning 75 for them... would this really make any difference? Im intrigued.

[tracedout]

If Conquer Club wants to throttle question mark/low rank abuse they should just have scores round down. As it is, you get a whole point from a player if the 20*theirscore/yourscore formula has a decimal place. so if you get 5.01 points from a player, you actually will be credited with 6 points.

If players are consistently winning 5 points per player, removing rounding up will cut their win points by just under 20% to 4 points per player.

And this only really makes a big difference if scoring differential is wide - closer it is to even, less % of points are cut.

It's like the fraction of penny scheme in office space - each fraction in itself isn't worth much, but over thousands of transactions(games) over hundreds of days, they add up.

an interesting point, but the newbies would have their points garnished too.. but I suppose winning 76 is the same as winning 75 for them... would this really make any difference? Im intrigued.

Right, it is a throttling mechanism, but I think it mainly cuts back the points of players who play those with considerably lower points.

And I don't think it's such a big deal to have a negative fraction leak, given question marks are a positive points leak anyway.

[Scott-Land]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

So bitter for something so unimportant, is it puberty that is bothering you ?

If there isn't a scoreboard to gauge yourself by or to climb, the site would be non-existent. It's the competitive nature in us that brings us back to the shit dice and whiny asses you see in these Forums. A scoreboard creates goals however small or large; otherwise we'd just come to play an occasional game. There wouldn't be a Map Forum, Callouts or Clans without it. It's what brings players back to this site.

Oh? Of course you would say that. King of the inbreds. Try playing actual games against actual opponents. You twerp.

As none of you (high scorers) will I have challenged you to respond. None of you can. Because you play so few of the people here, because you scam for points (you, Scott-Land are one of the most obvious offenders) you choose to believe that the rabble will accept you.

You are a liar, your score is false, and it is aided and abetted by Conquer Club.

You cheat.

I've been in a pretty sour mood of late- thanks for the laugh.

[jpliberty]

If I were to give one reason why the majority of players are at the top of the CC scoreboard it is because they are competitive, win or lose they always learn something from a game and never give up. Pretty much anybody with a desire to learn and the requisite commitment can get close to the top of the tree but it takes hard work, much easier of course not to bother and simply abuse those who do !

And you would know, I mean with your 200plus unique opponents.

You are a phony.

[jpliberty]

[quote="AAFitz"]im sending you the game numbers to 5 games... good luck

For the record though.. your point is completely backwards... its much harder gaining points from the top players than the less ranked players. Joecoolfrog is one hard guy to beat. He plays few games against the best players on the site, surgically and strategically, while players like me take the majority of my points from lesser qualified players.

Youve actually proven the usefulness and reason for the scoring system most unwittingly Im sure[/quote
Oh, I'll do battle anytime. Answer me this: why now? Why is it that although I've defeated approximately 10% of the Conquer Club players, you, and your "exalted" buddies, "the best" never have joined one of my frequently posted games?

Answer: it would drop you in points.

That is the long and the short of it.

I recently sent out invites, specifically excluding anyone below the rank of Sgt. In the few days it took to complete those games I gained approx. 200pts. Lost em right back when I went back to open, public games.

Openness, public, are two words you are yours don't acknowledge. You are neither open nor public, except with your blind, stupid and assinine pomposity.

Now, I'll go look and see if you actually did send me any game numbers, then I'll kick your butt.

[jpliberty]

And now I have looked and I sent you my reply.

Get a life.

I proposed to your that we meet and do battle on actual game maps, instead of what you suggest, which are scamster traps.

Unlike more than 10% of this community, I actually play everyone. You play, at best, 3%, and you scam those.

I'll play you on maps of my choice, not your choice.

I offered you to choose which map from the more than 20 I play. I will not play your child game.

[jpliberty]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

So bitter for something so unimportant, is it puberty that is bothering you ?

Still won't respond to the very simple, obvious observation. Why is it I should acknowledge or respect your rank when you play virtually no one here?

[jpliberty]

joecoolfrog, who entered his "wise" opinion in an earlier thread (and to which idiocy I responded) has an interesting record...and, he's one of the highest scoring Conquer Clubians.

At the time of this posting, he has exactly 236 unique defeats. Meaning? joecoolfrog's rank is a fraud.

I have well over 2000 unique defeats.

Of course, some of the disparity is over games played.

And I hope that those following this thread understand that I have absolutely no interest in rank/score, my own or that of others (I have lost too damn many games and points to cooks, unlike those exalted high rankers who never play against cooks).

What is important is that joecoolfrog, and morons like him (high ranking morons) are scamming a scammable system.

Conquer Club's scoring system is an insult to those of us who pay for this service. It's a slap in the face to those who just want to play the game and whose options are limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank...What's next? What idiocy will Conquer Club dream up next?

So bitter for something so unimportant, is it puberty that is bothering you ?

If there isn't a scoreboard to gauge yourself by or to climb, the site would be non-existent. It's the competitive nature in us that brings us back to the shit dice and whiny asses you see in these Forums. A scoreboard creates goals however small or large; otherwise we'd just come to play an occasional game. There wouldn't be a Map Forum, Callouts or Clans without it. It's what brings players back to this site.

Nope, The site exists because of the game, and because of the participation of the98% plus people you never have played. It's not about you Scott-Land, it's about almost everyone else here...you are a the exception, hardly the rule.

[jpliberty]

Have you ever played poo? If so you would not say these things. Poo is the best overall player in my opinion. He can play any style and win at a high rate. He deserves his rank. Now lets stop being jealous and keep on topic.

Whenever poo might grow a set poo can join any game I am in.

Poo wont' do that. Why. Poo like rank.

As a player who joins games because i enjoy them rather than trying to prove my abilities, i know for sure that I won't be joining one of your games.

A quick search of your recent games shows that you like to play 2 player, sequential, Flate Rate, Unlim forts. I think I may have stumbled across the reason for all your hatred towards the scoring system. 2 player, sequential, flate rate with unlim forts is the most luck-based setting you can play at cc(obviously excluding the ridiculous, doodle assassins).
I'll break down your gamestyle's factors for you.
a) 2 player- 2 player games are heads up games, 1v1's. There is absolutely no diplomacy involved in 2 player games.
b)Sequential- It is not a secret that playing first in sequential is a big advantage. You get to play first roughly 50% of the time. This is a bad thing, you have absolutely no impact on whether or not you are playing first or second. Therefore, it is all luck whether or not you start the game going first against a cook or second against a colonel.
c)Flat Rate- there is a chance to get a set worth 10 after only 3 cards and a set worth 4 after 5 cards. This is far more luck based than esc and no cards. At least in esc, you know what your cards will be worth.
d) Unlim forts- Whoever goes first has a huge advantage, forting up and being able to attack with v.large stacks first in round 2.
In my opinion, it would be nearly impossible to get anywhere near the top of the scoreboard playing those settings. Hence, the 0.1786 points you get per game. It isn't the scoring systems fault that you chose to play settings where the biggest factor is luck.

"diplomacy" as you mean it actually means lets screw one or all of the others in the game.
There is NO room for "diplomacy" in these games.

Any FOOL can see that a game based on dice, random assignment of territories, etc. is almost ENTIRELY luck based. Only a FOOL believes skill is a major factor.

That said, I'd kick your ass at least 51% of the time in 2 player games. Maybe even 52%, unless, of course, you are like some of the top scorers, real soft in the underbelly, in which case I'd kick your ass up where your tongue hangs out.

You just made the dumbest fucking post to date in this threat - only a fool believes skill is a major factor? Go kill yourself.

No, I won't kill myself. Tell me, why is it you are hung up on the skill factor?

Dice, cards, random assignment of territories and random order of turns.

Enough to tell you that CC is almost ENTIRELY luck based?

No?

Well, you are in good company, if you consider the likes of the CC administration, who dreamed up this nonsense and rank precisely because they know that many are fools...it's marketing dude...and you have been had.

[Bruceswar]

I think this thread has totally gone off topic and has become you vs anybody who is higher than you. You dug your grave, and found many ignore list. It is better you not post anymore in this. You are just killing yourself here with each comment.

[Timminz]

What settings/maps will you play?

[jpliberty]

I think this thread has totally gone off topic and has become you vs anybody who is higher than you. You dug your grave, and found many ignore list. It is better you not post anymore in this. You are just killing yourself here with each comment.

What are you worried about? You've stuck around to kiss the requisite ass.

[jpliberty]

What settings/maps will you play?

Any settings standard, any of the more than 20 maps I have played...I listed several, told AAfitz to do a Map Rank check on the maps I will accept.

There is a good way to do this.

I will play any higher ranked player 200 games. If CC allows it, we will do it for NO points. The result will be around 50%. However, in the case of players like joecoolfrog I would have to say I'd kick his behind back way behind his ears...waaaay out there beyond the 50%, cause he to me seems an obvious cheat.

The rest, well, I'll take one of them at a time. 200 games eliminates the element of pure chance.

Some of us actually are grounded in the real world. Some of us know that CC is a game of chance, of luck, and NOT a game of skill.

[Greatwhite]

The whole point that 'high ranking players play the same people' is half right. In team games I wanna play with guys I know don't deadbeat or make bone head moves. That comes with playing countless games with new people.
The second part is wrong. I, and many others with a bit of points, play open games where we risk losing 50 points to maybe gain 6 if we win. That means I have to win at least 8 games to 1 to break even so piss off with the secret brotherhood conspiracy.
I will play with any rank providing they have a 100% attendance rating and decent feedback. Hell, I stand to get more points when playing with lower ranks on my team.

[jpliberty]

ANY way you slice it, it would be an improvement. Most of the high rank skanks never have played much of anyone.

[Timminz]

After looking at your games, I completely understand why you say the CC is almost entirely luck based. 1v1, flat rate, unlimited, sequential is the setting that includes the most luck. You are doing well to maintain the rank of captain, playing nothing but those settings.

[Bruceswar]

I think this thread has totally gone off topic and has become you vs anybody who is higher than you. You dug your grave, and found many ignore list. It is better you not post anymore in this. You are just killing yourself here with each comment.

What are you worried about? You've stuck around to kiss the requisite ass.

Really do you believe anything you say? Really are you that far lost in your own world to see the bigger picture?

[Scott-Land]

The whole point that 'high ranking players play the same people' is half right. In team games I wanna play with guys I know don't deadbeat or make bone head moves. That comes with playing countless games with new people.
The second part is wrong. I, and many others with a bit of points, play open games where we risk losing 50 points to maybe gain 6 if we win. That means I have to win at least 8 games to 1 to break even so piss off with the secret brotherhood conspiracy.
I will play with any rank providing they have a 100% attendance rating and decent feedback. Hell, I stand to get more points when playing with lower ranks on my team.

Nah you only risked 20 a game where as my team risked more- but I forgot you'd rather risk losing more for the higher chance you'd come out winning against noobs. You ignore teams where you would lose the least amount because you can't win. It's a no brainer indeed-

hmm lose to a higher ranked team for 20 or uhhh risk more points but have a lock against three random opponents- obviously the latter.

[FabledIntegral]

As a player who joins games because i enjoy them rather than trying to prove my abilities, i know for sure that I won't be joining one of your games.

A quick search of your recent games shows that you like to play 2 player, sequential, Flate Rate, Unlim forts. I think I may have stumbled across the reason for all your hatred towards the scoring system. 2 player, sequential, flate rate with unlim forts is the most luck-based setting you can play at cc(obviously excluding the ridiculous, doodle assassins).
I'll break down your gamestyle's factors for you.
a) 2 player- 2 player games are heads up games, 1v1's. There is absolutely no diplomacy involved in 2 player games.
b)Sequential- It is not a secret that playing first in sequential is a big advantage. You get to play first roughly 50% of the time. This is a bad thing, you have absolutely no impact on whether or not you are playing first or second. Therefore, it is all luck whether or not you start the game going first against a cook or second against a colonel.
c)Flat Rate- there is a chance to get a set worth 10 after only 3 cards and a set worth 4 after 5 cards. This is far more luck based than esc and no cards. At least in esc, you know what your cards will be worth.
d) Unlim forts- Whoever goes first has a huge advantage, forting up and being able to attack with v.large stacks first in round 2.
In my opinion, it would be nearly impossible to get anywhere near the top of the scoreboard playing those settings. Hence, the 0.1786 points you get per game. It isn't the scoring systems fault that you chose to play settings where the biggest factor is luck.

"diplomacy" as you mean it actually means lets screw one or all of the others in the game.
There is NO room for "diplomacy" in these games.

Any FOOL can see that a game based on dice, random assignment of territories, etc. is almost ENTIRELY luck based. Only a FOOL believes skill is a major factor.

That said, I'd kick your ass at least 51% of the time in 2 player games. Maybe even 52%, unless, of course, you are like some of the top scorers, real soft in the underbelly, in which case I'd kick your ass up where your tongue hangs out.

You just made the dumbest fucking post to date in this threat - only a fool believes skill is a major factor? Go kill yourself.

No, I won't kill myself. Tell me, why is it you are hung up on the skill factor?

Dice, cards, random assignment of territories and random order of turns.

Enough to tell you that CC is almost ENTIRELY luck based?

No?

Well, you are in good company, if you consider the likes of the CC administration, who dreamed up this nonsense and rank precisely because they know that many are fools...it's marketing dude...and you have been had.

1. Cards - you can play escalating or flat rate I believe. In escalating you play your odds, 66% of the time someone will not have a 3-set, 22% of the time someone will have 2 pair. No cards is self-explanatory. Flat Rate is the luck based gamestyle.
2. Random assignment of territories, unless absolutely horrid, is not a very limiting factor in gameplay, unless you're playing 1v1 games.
3. Freestyle does not have random order of turns, hence the reason I prefer it.
4. Dice are relatively consistent, although they do become very streaky. It's the only half legitimate point you've made.

What settings/maps will you play?

Any settings standard, any of the more than 20 maps I have played...I listed several, told AAfitz to do a Map Rank check on the maps I will accept.

There is a good way to do this.

I will play any higher ranked player 200 games. If CC allows it, we will do it for NO points. The result will be around 50%. However, in the case of players like joecoolfrog I would have to say I'd kick his behind back way behind his ears...waaaay out there beyond the 50%, cause he to me seems an obvious cheat.

The rest, well, I'll take one of them at a time. 200 games eliminates the element of pure chance.

Some of us actually are grounded in the real world. Some of us know that CC is a game of chance, of luck, and NOT a game of skill.

There is less skill in 1v1. Why don't you try playing larger games, such as 6-player or 8-player, that revolve around blocking, positioning, killing others, saving others, etc. For the love of god stop thinking that this site revolves around 1v1 - all the players you've accused DON'T PLAY 1v1 AND THUS DON'T FALL INTO YOUR STEREOTYPES.

[comic boy]

Only the truly moronic would surmise that it is skillful to play endless 1 v 1 matches against random opponents, with game settings that are hugely influenced by luck. It takes an even greater degree of stupidity to then criticise those who prefer to play a moderate amount of games against those of similar ability, with as much emphasis on strategy as possible given the restraints of the dice. To further assume that throwing baseless ( and unsupported ) insults at respected players is advantageous to ones argument argues a degree of senility that can only be pitied. The thing is that the likes of Scott,Poo and Joe will continue to play enjoyable ,hard fought games and other players will consider their level of expertise to be worth aiming for, this liberty oaf will however carry on doing little more than throwing dice all day and be of similar significance to the shit on the sole of ones shoe,

[owenshooter]

i liked when curly went nuts and posted 5 times in a row... that was very interesting... what is this thread about again? the OP has taken it so far off topic, i don't even know what he is suggesting or implying, anymore!-0

[Bruceswar]

i liked when curly went nuts and posted 5 times in a row... that was very interesting... what is this thread about again? the OP has taken it so far off topic, i don't even know what he is suggesting or implying, anymore!-0

He is just ranting now, but the OP started on players rated vs the scoreboard.

[Fruitcake]

Put a team together Libby old chap, pm me with the names, I will put a team together that matches on points gained/lost and will gladly play you best of 3/5/7/9 games....standard triples, no cards, classic map, chained forts. In my opinion, for what it is worth, this shows the least 'luck' and the most strategic skill. I already have open games of this nature up on the board, but for you I am happy to go 'private'.

[Bruceswar]

Put a team together Libby old chap, pm me with the names, I will put a team together that matches on points gained/lost and will gladly play you best of 3/5/7/9 games....standard triples, no cards, classic map, chained forts. In my opinion, for what it is worth, this shows the least 'luck' and the most strategic skill. I already have open games of this nature up on the board, but for you I am happy to go 'private'.

I doubt you will be getting a PM