More "proof" that the scoring system is rigged

[jpliberty]

Seems simple enough to give full information. Calculate the statistic showing how many unique players the person has played against and include it on the wall for each player.

Excellent suggestion. Map Rank already calculates this. I have no idea if the coding involved would be a great burden. However, this one statistic has merit, unlike the current scoring system, which is riggable and therefore worthlesss.

[jpliberty]

Who cares? Many of us are here for the enjoyment of the game and score and ranking are just minor indicia of our achievement/ If we want to play the same 10 people over and over, well, that is our choice. We don't need to flop it on the table and measure against yours.

Certainly. So, why have ranks?

Because they do convey some notion, however limited, of experience and competence. It is usefull information, but not determinative.

Then perhaps we are in agreement or nearabouts. I say Rank means nothing you suggest that it means little.

[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?

[jpliberty]

And, if anyone doesn't totally understand yet, joecoolfrog, the Brigadier, has defeated fewer than 1% of active Conquer Clubians.

Wow. Be proud of your rank Joe, by all that is Conquer Club's scoring system, you truly have earned it .

[Bruceswar]

It was just about time for another one of these post to show up. Seemingly all from a mid ranked player. Having been where you are and then been higher up on the board, I can tell you that if you think these players only play play each other you are nuts. Many of them choose to play a number of there games with others that are close in rank for a few simple reasons.

1. Once you get above 2500+ there is a bit more skill needed to win those private games. You can deny that all you want, but it will stand as such.

2. Many higher ranked players have been threw the ropes time and time again. They made their way up to the rank they are now. As you go up in rank and skill, you will start getting invites from people who trust you. Many of these games have more skilled people in them. It is just the way it happens.

3. After seeing it all and doing it all, many of these high rankers are tired of getting suicided on, people taking bad shots, etc etc. More often than not this will not happen with better comp.

BTW Starting at the top the scoreboard, will yield you the games best. Take Poo or Scott-Land for example. Having played many many games with both, I can tell you these players are as good as it gets. They win on a regular basis, and seemingly make it look easy. It is nowhere near as easy as it looks! If you think you could just waltz into one of these higher ranked games and run it over you are sadly mistaken. These people did not make it there, yet much less stay there by only playing each other. They also did not make it there / keep themselves there by making dumb plays. Yes many with your rank are terrible players. Yep I said it, I have seen many with your rank that make plays that are plays a cook should be making.

Say someone makes it to 2500+ and then decides to join some 2500+ games. If they made it there by playing 1 map and 1 style then they will most likely not fair well in these games. AOR series is not one you usually play in 2500+ games. Now if you are a well rounder player and made it to 2500+ by playing many settings and maps, then you might have a better shot. But be noted that nobody is going to suicide into someone else, and leave you to mop up in 5 or 6 rounds. Games generally last longer and the people are more strategically sound in them. Don't assume just because people now choose to play a select few that they are not good at all. That would be like me telling you Tiger Woods, does not want to play you because you are not high enough ranked in the golf world. Chances are Tiger Woods would run you out of the game quickly.

It is easy to take shots if you have never tried it for yourself, but once you have you will find it is no walk in the park. Saying that a person has rated X amount of players tells you anything about the player is just nuts. Players are free to rate whoever they so choose. Some choose to rate only some people while other rate everybody. Then you have some who never leave any ratings. All personal choice. I see no direct connection between ratings and score.

[FabledIntegral]

As if "proof" is needed.

Why do the very highest ranked players leave so few ratings?

It’s interesting to look at the ratings left by the highest scoring players.

They leave far fewer ratings than players scoring far below them.

The reason for the discrepancy may or may not be obvious.

The simple fact is they play far fewer unique players.

This is not across the board, some higher scoring players seem to play a lot of unique opponents.

Most do not. Most seem to be fairly inbred.

Hopefully, this is another nail in what should be the coffin of Conquer Club’s incredibly bogus, rigged, twisted scoring system.

I don't leave ratings unless someone impresses me, or suicides me.

Since not many people impress me, maybe it's a good thing my ratings left aren't ridiculously high. Your logic is highly flawed. Most low ranks will merely leave everyone all 5 stars for very mediocre performances, simply because they don't see the crap moves the other players actually made. If I see a sergeant make a shitty move towards someone else, which causes me to win the game, I'm not going to give him a 5-star in gameplay or anything like that.

[wacicha]

I believe on any given day if you check my rank it is right where I believe it should be. If you check the rank of high ranking officers in most armed services you will see after a certain point they are not in the thick of things. If I wanted to be high ranked I would be. But I enjoy battling the new, the low and the medium ranked.

What does this mean.
It means if you want to be high ranked then be high ranked if you enjoy where you are then enjoy where you are.

Most do not enjoy playing cooks. Not only do I like playing them I like teaching them how to TAKE my points.

I am happy with my rank and the system at hand I am in the fighting RANKS.

[jpliberty]

It was just about time for another one of these post to show up. Seemingly all from a mid ranked player. Having been where you are and then been higher up on the board, I can tell you that if you think these players only play play each other you are nuts. Many of them choose to play a number of there games with others that are close in rank for a few simple reasons.

1. Once you get above 2500+ there is a bit more skill needed to win those private games. You can deny that all you want, but it will stand as such.

2. Many higher ranked players have been threw the ropes time and time again. They made their way up to the rank they are now. As you go up in rank and skill, you will start getting invites from people who trust you. Many of these games have more skilled people in them. It is just the way it happens.

3. After seeing it all and doing it all, many of these high rankers are tired of getting suicided on, people taking bad shots, etc etc. More often than not this will not happen with better comp.

BTW Starting at the top the scoreboard, will yield you the games best. Take Poo or Scott-Land for example. Having played many many games with both, I can tell you these players are as good as it gets. They win on a regular basis, and seemingly make it look easy. It is nowhere near as easy as it looks! If you think you could just waltz into one of these higher ranked games and run it over you are sadly mistaken. These people did not make it there, yet much less stay there by only playing each other. They also did not make it there / keep themselves there by making dumb plays. Yes many with your rank are terrible players. Yep I said it, I have seen many with your rank that make plays that are plays a cook should be making.

Say someone makes it to 2500+ and then decides to join some 2500+ games. If they made it there by playing 1 map and 1 style then they will most likely not fair well in these games. AOR series is not one you usually play in 2500+ games. Now if you are a well rounder player and made it to 2500+ by playing many settings and maps, then you might have a better shot. But be noted that nobody is going to suicide into someone else, and leave you to mop up in 5 or 6 rounds. Games generally last longer and the people are more strategically sound in them. Don't assume just because people now choose to play a select few that they are not good at all. That would be like me telling you Tiger Woods, does not want to play you because you are not high enough ranked in the golf world. Chances are Tiger Woods would run you out of the game quickly.

It is easy to take shots if you have never tried it for yourself, but once you have you will find it is no walk in the park. Saying that a person has rated X amount of players tells you anything about the player is just nuts. Players are free to rate whoever they so choose. Some choose to rate only some people while other rate everybody. Then you have some who never leave any ratings. All personal choice. I see no direct connection between ratings and score.

Let's examine your points.

1) Ok, so explain it to me in terms I can understand (and remember, I am one of the lower class, currently not ranked much better than in the top 10% of Conquer Clubians, so be patient, be slow, for I have much to learn and my tools are so limited . Why does it take more skill to win a game when one has a higher rank?

What pure stupidity.



2) or, you will not. As the experience of well over 90% of Conquer Club’s active players amply demonstrates, you will not get to play those few exalted ones

3) I’m tired of it too…all I ever want to do is play the game. I could care less about score, except where it impedes my ability to get a game going.

You are wrong, you are demonstrably wrong by your own statements, and you will cling to the Conquer Club ranking system until hell freezes over…why? Hell, I don’t know you but I will hazard a guess. You want some achievement…and buddy, you are welcome to it…if you think rank/score at Conquer Club is it, well, take all the honors you can get…try to play a few more players though than Brigadier joecoolfrog.

Try to cross that 1% threshold, heh?

[whitestazn88]

i don't understand how its rigged if they're all playing each other then it should be fairly competitive and therefore harder to gain points...

[jpliberty]

I believe on any given day if you check my rank it is right where I believe it should be. If you check the rank of high ranking officers in most armed services you will see after a certain point they are not in the thick of things. If I wanted to be high ranked I would be. But I enjoy battling the new, the low and the medium ranked.

What does this mean.
It means if you want to be high ranked then be high ranked if you enjoy where you are then enjoy where you are.

Most do not enjoy playing cooks. Not only do I like playing them I like teaching them how to TAKE my points.

I am happy with my rank and the system at hand I am in the fighting RANKS.

Come on! This is NOT military warfare and there is no strategic thought in the same sense as in an actual conflict.

However, if one embraces the Conquer Club view that rank here means something, well, I guess we've got some West Pointers who never visited that campus, much less spent four years there.

[Bruceswar]

i don't understand how its rigged if they're all playing each other then it should be fairly competitive and therefore harder to gain points...

This is 100% true. 95% of the people in 2500+ want to win at all cost. Why, because the y enjoy winning and do not like losing. Therefore the game is very intense, and one small mistake could cost you the whole game. In public games you can get away with mistakes at times, but not in these games. Better have your A game ready.

[jpliberty]

And I really want some exalted ones to explain to me why Conquer Club exalts people like Brigadier joecoolfrog as a "highly skilled" player when in fact that player has defeated fewer than 1% of Conquer Clubians.

Explain that to me in terms I can understand, and remember, I am stupid, one of the lesser ranked.

Go thru the top-ranked players. The typical scenario is this: they are scamming a scammable system.

[jpliberty]

i don't understand how its rigged if they're all playing each other then it should be fairly competitive and therefore harder to gain points...

This is 100% true. 95% of the people in 2500+ want to win at all cost. Why, because the y enjoy winning and do not like losing. Therefore the game is very intense, and one small mistake could cost you the whole game. In public games you can get away with mistakes at times, but not in these games. Better have your A game ready.

If there were any truth in anything you say it'd be reflected by actual stats.

The actual stats say something totally different.

I am making the point that the high ranking players DO NOT play many of the people here. Why is that?

[ParadiceCity9]

i don't understand how its rigged if they're all playing each other then it should be fairly competitive and therefore harder to gain points...

This is 100% true. 95% of the people in 2500+ want to win at all cost. Why, because the y enjoy winning and do not like losing. Therefore the game is very intense, and one small mistake could cost you the whole game. In public games you can get away with mistakes at times, but not in these games. Better have your A game ready.

If there were any truth in anything you say it'd be reflected by actual stats.

The actual stats say something totally different.

I am making the point that the high ranking players DO NOT play many of the people here. Why is that?

Actual stats being not giving many ratings? I'm confused!!

[Bruceswar]

Let's examine your points.

1) Ok, so explain it to me in terms I can understand (and remember, I am one of the lower class, currently not ranked much better than in the top 10% of Conquer Clubians, so be patient, be slow, for I have much to learn and my tools are so limited . Why does it take more skill to win a game when one has a higher rank?

What pure stupidity.



2) or, you will not. As the experience of well over 90% of Conquer Club’s active players amply demonstrates, you will not get to play those few exalted ones

3) I’m tired of it too…all I ever want to do is play the game. I could care less about score, except where it impedes my ability to get a game going.

You are wrong, you are demonstrably wrong by your own statements, and you will cling to the Conquer Club ranking system until hell freezes over…why? Hell, I don’t know you but I will hazard a guess. You want some achievement…and buddy, you are welcome to it…if you think rank/score at Conquer Club is it, well, take all the honors you can get…try to play a few more players though than Brigadier joecoolfrog.

Try to cross that 1% threshold, heh?

To respond to you.....

1. Weather you like it or not more skill is needed to win games with better ranked people in them. That is just how it is. Weather it be 1400+ or 2500+ plus. Now nowhere did I say you were slow or a terrible rank.

2. Many of these high ranked players still play public games, but just not as many as they used to. I myself play many public games and have over 1300 + unique defeats. I am not one for score either. I just like to win. With winning comes a better score. Many of these people get tired of beating cooks, so they seek out better comp.

3. Nobody who understands this game likes suicides, but they happen more often at the lower levels. That is just a fact. BTW I am in the Train a Cook Society, so I help many people out get better at this game. It is a right of passage sort of speak. I had people help me out when I started, so now I am returning the favor.

I doubt many outside of Klobber will hang on to this scoring system like it is a god. Many of us do not care and only wish to win and play the best there is. Test our skills if you may. If you focus on winning the game, while playing it, your score will take care of itself. Now granted it is nice to make certain levels in this game, but not many will die over not making X amount of points or X rank. If you think any of these top players are over ranked just because they only play each other you are sadly mistaken. You will quickly be torn to pieces in these games, if you do not bring your A game. The moves you try vs a cook or lower ranking person, will not work here. Just something to think about.

[jpliberty]

As if "proof" is needed.

Why do the very highest ranked players leave so few ratings?

It’s interesting to look at the ratings left by the highest scoring players.

They leave far fewer ratings than players scoring far below them.

The reason for the discrepancy may or may not be obvious.

The simple fact is they play far fewer unique players.

This is not across the board, some higher scoring players seem to play a lot of unique opponents.

Most do not. Most seem to be fairly inbred.

Hopefully, this is another nail in what should be the coffin of Conquer Club’s incredibly bogus, rigged, twisted scoring system.

I don't leave ratings unless someone impresses me, or suicides me.

Since not many people impress me, maybe it's a good thing my ratings left aren't ridiculously high. Your logic is highly flawed. Most low ranks will merely leave everyone all 5 stars for very mediocre performances, simply because they don't see the crap moves the other players actually made. If I see a sergeant make a shitty move towards someone else, which causes me to win the game, I'm not going to give him a 5-star in gameplay or anything like that.

Ah, I see. So those ranked higher than Sergeant make fewer idiot moves?

What stats do you have to back this up? The stat which shows that those, like Brigadier joecoolfrog, who play fewer than 1% of the players here are "proven experts"?

LOL, what idiocy. Accept facts. The Conquer Club scoring system is a stacked deck.

[hecter]

I don't recognize any achievement in their score nor do I find pleasure in my own score.

Oh, so you say that rank means nothing then, right?

I say Rank means nothing

Good, glad we're in agreement. So then there's obviously no issue, right?

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?

But it means nothing... How can something that means nothing mean all that?

Look, you said that you don't care about score. That it means nothing to you. Then why do you clearly care so much about it? Why is it making you so upset? Your options aren't "limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank" with the exception of you not being able to play said idiots.

Here's a simple little fact of online gaming... People who put the most effort in trying to get around the system will be rewarded with a large amount of what ever they're trying to get, whether it be a high score in CC or a lot of gold in Runescape or a level 70 undead mage in WoW. There is no way around it. So, all of us have a choice: We can either A. Play the game how ever we want and try to have the most fun we can or B. Grind until you're at the top. For some A and B aren't mutually exclusive. Some people just really don't like playing cooks. Others can play what ever CC throws at them and still have fun. But, might I recommend practising what you preach and stop caring about score and just have some fun, eh?

[jpliberty]

Actual stats being not giving many ratings? I'm confused!!

I understand and I am sympathetic to your plight. You long have believed that rank/score at Conquer Club signifies something, other than a scamster's abilities.

Must be crushing news.

[Bruceswar]

i don't understand how its rigged if they're all playing each other then it should be fairly competitive and therefore harder to gain points...

This is 100% true. 95% of the people in 2500+ want to win at all cost. Why, because the y enjoy winning and do not like losing. Therefore the game is very intense, and one small mistake could cost you the whole game. In public games you can get away with mistakes at times, but not in these games. Better have your A game ready.

If there were any truth in anything you say it'd be reflected by actual stats.

The actual stats say something totally different.

I am making the point that the high ranking players DO NOT play many of the people here. Why is that?

To answer your question..

Look at the PGA Tour. There are say 200+ golfers on it. Now how many people in the world play golf? Millions. That would be less than 1% of all golfers. They choose to play these 200 or so people, because it is a test of there skills. If any one of these golf pro's came to your local golf course they would more than likely, shoot a very low score. I am sure there are many, many golfers who would love to play Tiger Woods, but that is just not going to happen. The guys on the PGA Tour are not their by luck. They put a lot of work into what they do to make it there. Now as this relates to CC. Many of these top players spend many hours working on strategies, and thinking of ways to get better. These people then search out the best there is to play and test their skills vs them. Simple as that. They do not need to play every cook to prove they are better than them. Rank generally has some bearing to your skill level. Remember I said generally. There are always exceptions to the rule.

[jpliberty]

I don't recognize any achievement in their score nor do I find pleasure in my own score.

Oh, so you say that rank means nothing then, right?

I say Rank means nothing

Good, glad we're in agreement. So then there's obviously no issue, right?

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?

But it means nothing... How can something that means nothing mean all that?

Look, you said that you don't care about score. That it means nothing to you. Then why do you clearly care so much about it? Why is it making you so upset? Your options aren't "limited by the kind of idiots who need medals, rank" with the exception of you not being able to play said idiots.

Here's a simple little fact of online gaming... People who put the most effort in trying to get around the system will be rewarded with a large amount of what ever they're trying to get, whether it be a high score in CC or a lot of gold in Runescape or a level 70 undead mage in WoW. There is no way around it. So, all of us have a choice: We can either A. Play the game how ever we want and try to have the most fun we can or B. Grind until you're at the top. For some A and B aren't mutually exclusive. Some people just really don't like playing cooks. Others can play what ever CC throws at them and still have fun. But, might I recommend practising what you preach and stop caring about score and just have some fun, eh?

"At the top" of what? I play to win the game. Each game. I could care less about score/rank because that doesn't enter into the simple facts of trying to win a game...except for the scamsters.

And, for a list of scamster usernames, I now refer you to the Conquer Club scoreboard.

[jpliberty]

No one who here has defended the current rank/scoring system has yet answered the very simple, direct and obvious question I have posed about commentator joecoolfrog, the exalted Brigadier who claims my opposition to the scoring system now in place is based on "envy".

I want to know why is it that I should recognize the "achievements" of someone who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players here.

Someone answer that.

[FabledIntegral]

As if "proof" is needed.

Why do the very highest ranked players leave so few ratings?

It’s interesting to look at the ratings left by the highest scoring players.

They leave far fewer ratings than players scoring far below them.

The reason for the discrepancy may or may not be obvious.

The simple fact is they play far fewer unique players.

This is not across the board, some higher scoring players seem to play a lot of unique opponents.

Most do not. Most seem to be fairly inbred.

Hopefully, this is another nail in what should be the coffin of Conquer Club’s incredibly bogus, rigged, twisted scoring system.

I don't leave ratings unless someone impresses me, or suicides me.

Since not many people impress me, maybe it's a good thing my ratings left aren't ridiculously high. Your logic is highly flawed. Most low ranks will merely leave everyone all 5 stars for very mediocre performances, simply because they don't see the crap moves the other players actually made. If I see a sergeant make a shitty move towards someone else, which causes me to win the game, I'm not going to give him a 5-star in gameplay or anything like that.

Ah, I see. So those ranked higher than Sergeant make fewer idiot moves?

What stats do you have to back this up? The stat which shows that those, like Brigadier joecoolfrog, who play fewer than 1% of the players here are "proven experts"?

LOL, what idiocy. Accept facts. The Conquer Club scoring system is a stacked deck.

Ah, I see. So those ranked higher than Sergeant make fewer idiot moves?

Yes.

[poo-maker]

It’s interesting to look at the ratings left by the highest scoring players.

They leave far fewer ratings than players scoring far below them.

The reason for the discrepancy may or may not be obvious.

The simple fact is they play far fewer unique players.

Have you even asked any high rankers why they don't leave many ratings? My bet is that you haven't. Quite simply, I only leave ratings for a) people that impress me with their game play b) players that are ridiculously bad a conquerclub c) people who happened to catch me on a rating sorta mood. The reason I rate like this is because once I have rated the good players and the terrible players, I am left with the average players. The average players probably did little in the way of powerful strategic moves and knew enough about the game to not run over the rest of us for a bonus. They probably hung around for a few rounds posing a minor threat, but were easily taken out due to them not knowing enough about what was going on. I don't bother rating these players. The reason for that is because these players deserve 3's. When they get those well-deserved 3's, they whine and moan and ask what the hell did they do wrong to deserve a 3!

I usually refrain from posting in these kinds of threads. This is because they are always started by whining mid-rankers who are looking for any reason to show how the high rankers are abusing the system, somehow cheating and un-deserving of their ranks.

[Bruceswar]

No one who here has defended the current rank/scoring system has yet answered the very simple, direct and obvious question I have posed about commentator joecoolfrog, the exalted Brigadier who claims my opposition to the scoring system now in place is based on "envy".

I want to know why is it that I should recognize the "achievements" of someone who has defeated fewer than 1% of the players here.

Someone answer that.

OK I will answer. Nobody has to recognize anything that anybody has done. To make to Brig is tough. Very tough in fact. That is the reason there are only 130+ people who have ever done it out of the thousands that played. Should tell you how hard it is. So on that note, people who only play so few amount of people and still make it, makes it that much better. Why? Because that means they are playing better people from the start usually. Points per player. Just because you beat 100 cooks, does not make you any better. I just shows you can beat the lowest rank possible. WOW! I would much rather beat 1 Brig than 100 cooks. Cooks generally offer me no challenge. Number of people you beat does not mean you are better than player X who plays fewer games with better people or lower ranked people. Quality any day over sheer numbers.

[FabledIntegral]

It’s interesting to look at the ratings left by the highest scoring players.

They leave far fewer ratings than players scoring far below them.

The reason for the discrepancy may or may not be obvious.

The simple fact is they play far fewer unique players.

Have you even asked any high rankers why they don't leave many ratings? My bet is that you haven't. Quite simply, I only leave ratings for a) people that impress me with their game play b) players that are ridiculously bad a conquerclub c) people who happened to catch me on a rating sorta mood. The reason I rate like this is because once I have rated the good players and the terrible players, I am left with the average players. The average players probably did little in the way of powerful strategic moves and knew enough about the game to not run over the rest of us for a bonus. They probably hung around for a few rounds posing a minor threat, but were easily taken out due to them not knowing enough about what was going on. I don't bother rating these players. The reason for that is because these players deserve 3's. When they get those well-deserved 3's, they whine and moan and ask what the hell did they do wrong to deserve a 3!

I usually refrain from posting in these kinds of threads. This is because they are always started by whining mid-rankers who are looking for any reason to show how the high rankers are abusing the system, somehow cheating and un-deserving of their ranks.

TY poo for saying exactly what I just said like 3 posts back... haha