Conquer Club

If only he would have done this with stdb04 and simtom. The whole warning then banning thing. It would have worked wonders.

probably!

reverend_kyle wrote:If only he would have done this with stdb04

stdb04 launched one of the most brilliant schemes in the history of CC.

For those who don’t remember, back in those days the 100 points limit on the amount of points a player could loose in a game hadn’t been implemented. The score/point formula continued indefinitely. stdb04 realized this, and started loosing. If the change hadn’t been made, stdb04 could just have won a six-player standard game later on as he was down to 1-2 points, then jumping up to 7-8000 points on the scoreboard.

Simply brilliant. He saw what no one else saw to begin with. And I believe that should be very much respected.

yup that kid is smart

Ohhhh


I hoped this thread would have pics...

alstergren wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:If only he would have done this with stdb04

stdb04 launched one of the most brilliant schemes in the history of CC.

For those who don’t remember, back in those days the 100 points limit on the amount of points a player could loose in a game hadn’t been implemented. The score/point formula continued indefinitely. stdb04 realized this, and started loosing. If the change hadn’t been made, stdb04 could just have won a six-player standard game later on as he was down to 1-2 points, then jumping up to 7-8000 points on the scoreboard.

Simply brilliant. He saw what no one else saw to begin with. And I believe that should be very much respected.

Well either that or nobody bothered to go through the trouble of losing a ton of game just so they could manage some rather pathetic bragging rights when they won it all back. It hardly takes a genius to do a little math.

I certainly care about my rating but mostly because I see it as a function of how well I'm playing the game. Thus, I can't imagine getting a whole lot of satisfaction out of being "top dog" because of such tactics.

detlef wrote:Well either that or nobody bothered to go through the trouble of losing a ton of game just so they could manage some rather pathetic bragging rights when they won it all back. It hardly takes a genius to do a little math.

I certainly care about my rating but mostly because I see it as a function of how well I'm playing the game. Thus, I can't imagine getting a whole lot of satisfaction out of being "top dog" because of such tactics.

That is actually a problem that seems to be pretty common on this site. The majority of people seems to lack imagination and doesn’t appreciate efforts made by individual players to push the game forward.

Looking back, of course it only took a little bit of math. However, no one really thought about it until one guy posted a pretty serious calculation with formulas and stuff. Simple, yes. Obvious, apparently not. We were really, really close to a major coup that would have seriously shaken up the scoreboard and revealed a small flaw in the game code that theoretically had some serious repercussions.

Now that was avoided since one guy actually realized this, and lack made a quick fix in the way won/lost points were calculated.

Nonetheless, having been successful, it would have revealed our common blindness and lack of imagination in what I would consider an absolutely beautiful way. Now, people keep yapping on and on about sportsmanship, playing for fun, skills are not reflected in the score system etc. etc. And you know, I’m dead tired about it. I think one should appreciate peoples’ imagination. One may find certain gamestyles etc. to be unwanted, but then I would think a better way would be to discuss such things in a general manner and not being upset with the ones who actually push the game engine to its limits.

But that’s just me. I appreciate scoundrels. Without them, the game wouldn’t have developed nearly as much as it has during the past year and a half.

that guy is a genius

The 1 point minimum was enacted because of him.

wicked wrote:The 1 point minimum was enacted because of him.

you dont think negative points are a good idea? how about negative ranks?

Rocketry

Dancing Mustard wrote:Ohhhh


I hoped this thread would have pics...

Rocketry wrote:

wicked wrote:The 1 point minimum was enacted because of him.

you dont think negative points are a good idea? how about negative ranks?

Rocketry

They already exist. They're called "private", "cadet" and "cook".

The1exile wrote:

Rocketry wrote:

wicked wrote:The 1 point minimum was enacted because of him.

you dont think negative points are a good idea? how about negative ranks?

Rocketry

They already exist. They're called "private", "cadet" and "cook".

lol - i was thinking more of a anti-conquerer. the guy with the lowest points.... or just "conquered"

Rocketry

Rocketry wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Rocketry wrote:

wicked wrote:The 1 point minimum was enacted because of him.

you dont think negative points are a good idea? how about negative ranks?

Rocketry

They already exist. They're called "private", "cadet" and "cook".

lol - i was thinking more of a anti-conquerer. the guy with the lowest points.... or just "conquered"

"Pathetic" would fit the rank better.

We thought about a special rank for the lowest score when re-doing the ranks, but did not want people deadbeating and losing on purpose just to get that rank.

wicked wrote:We thought about a special rank for the lowest score when re-doing the ranks, but did not want people deadbeating and losing on purpose just to get that rank.

My life is over

alstergren wrote:

detlef wrote:Well either that or nobody bothered to go through the trouble of losing a ton of game just so they could manage some rather pathetic bragging rights when they won it all back. It hardly takes a genius to do a little math.

I certainly care about my rating but mostly because I see it as a function of how well I'm playing the game. Thus, I can't imagine getting a whole lot of satisfaction out of being "top dog" because of such tactics.

That is actually a problem that seems to be pretty common on this site. The majority of people seems to lack imagination and doesn’t appreciate efforts made by individual players to push the game forward.

Looking back, of course it only took a little bit of math. However, no one really thought about it until one guy posted a pretty serious calculation with formulas and stuff. Simple, yes. Obvious, apparently not. We were really, really close to a major coup that would have seriously shaken up the scoreboard and revealed a small flaw in the game code that theoretically had some serious repercussions.

Now that was avoided since one guy actually realized this, and lack made a quick fix in the way won/lost points were calculated.

Nonetheless, having been successful, it would have revealed our common blindness and lack of imagination in what I would consider an absolutely beautiful way. Now, people keep yapping on and on about sportsmanship, playing for fun, skills are not reflected in the score system etc. etc. And you know, I’m dead tired about it. I think one should appreciate peoples’ imagination. One may find certain gamestyles etc. to be unwanted, but then I would think a better way would be to discuss such things in a general manner and not being upset with the ones who actually push the game engine to its limits.

But that’s just me. I appreciate scoundrels. Without them, the game wouldn’t have developed nearly as much as it has during the past year and a half.

I pray for your sake that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and don't really believe the crap you are selling.

Bragging rights over high score in an on-line game ultimately means little to begin with. Bragging rights over high score in an on-line game that was "earned" by finding some stupid hang-up in the scoring system (not to mention requiring deadbeating in a bunch of games and, thus, making the game less entertaining for all) means even less.

You say genius. I say no-life dork.

alstergren wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:If only he would have done this with stdb04

stdb04 launched one of the most brilliant schemes in the history of CC.

For those who don’t remember, back in those days the 100 points limit on the amount of points a player could loose in a game hadn’t been implemented. The score/point formula continued indefinitely. stdb04 realized this, and started loosing. If the change hadn’t been made, stdb04 could just have won a six-player standard game later on as he was down to 1-2 points, then jumping up to 7-8000 points on the scoreboard.

Simply brilliant. He saw what no one else saw to begin with. And I believe that should be very much respected.

I kind of argee.

alstergren wrote:stdb04 launched one of the most brilliant schemes in the history of CC.

For those who don’t remember, back in those days the 100 points limit on the amount of points a player could loose in a game hadn’t been implemented. The score/point formula continued indefinitely. stdb04 realized this, and started loosing. If the change hadn’t been made, stdb04 could just have won a six-player standard game later on as he was down to 1-2 points, then jumping up to 7-8000 points on the scoreboard.

Simply brilliant. He saw what no one else saw to begin with. And I believe that should be very much respected.

I disagree.

We all THOUGHT that was stdb's plan when we noticed he had 100 odd points and the next lowest was 500 something. That explains the mad rush to implement a system to stop him (and along with it the terrible suggestions of a new score system submitted by lack and andy- winning a set amount of points based on what ranks you beat, etc. TERRIBLE).

Anyway, as it turns out stdb continually denied that he was trying to get a low score (and since it would have been smart to do on purpose I believe him when he says that wasn't his goal). Apparently he just pulled a Johnny type move and joined 100 or so games....then unlike johnny he wasn't dedicated, got fed up with the site, and left dead beating in the most games ever up to that point. So it was an accident (so he says) but it improved our system a lot.

And I agree with Rev.

sully800 wrote:

alstergren wrote:stdb04 launched one of the most brilliant schemes in the history of CC.

For those who don’t remember, back in those days the 100 points limit on the amount of points a player could loose in a game hadn’t been implemented. The score/point formula continued indefinitely. stdb04 realized this, and started loosing. If the change hadn’t been made, stdb04 could just have won a six-player standard game later on as he was down to 1-2 points, then jumping up to 7-8000 points on the scoreboard.

Simply brilliant. He saw what no one else saw to begin with. And I believe that should be very much respected.

I disagree.

We all THOUGHT that was stdb's plan when we noticed he had 100 odd points and the next lowest was 500 something. That explains the mad rush to implement a system to stop him (and along with it the terrible suggestions of a new score system submitted by lack and andy- winning a set amount of points based on what ranks you beat, etc. TERRIBLE).

Anyway, as it turns out stdb continually denied that he was trying to get a low score (and since it would have been smart to do on purpose I believe him when he says that wasn't his goal). Apparently he just pulled a Johnny type move and joined 100 or so games....then unlike johnny he wasn't dedicated, got fed up with the site, and left dead beating in the most games ever up to that point. So it was an accident (so he says) but it improved our system a lot.

And I agree with Rev.

Yeah I was just about to post that. He was shocked to see the 20 some flame threads about him, and bumped every single one of them when he came back.He wasn't a griefer, but he could have appealed. Simtom however was a griefer and should have been band.

I agree with sully800.

There's a "better" way to drop your score down to 1 than deadbeating. Just join 6 player games and on your first turn, attack with every one of your countries until each are left with 1. Simply be somewhat even in who you attack and you will leave yourself with almost no chance of winning the game while also being less annoying to other players.

I dont think anybody has ever dropped close to 100 points unless they were deadbeating or scheming in some manner or the other. As this is the case simply pull the plug on anybody who drops to 100 points with the proviso they may rejoin for another 20 dollars. It wont completely solve the problem but will at least alleviate it a bit and possibly lessen the blow pointwise for anybody who gets stung.

Simtom however was a griefer and should have been band.

You realise I never broke any rules and was usually always friendly to people..

you know not everyone is good at the strategy of risk. some will lose some will lose a lot. By helping the new ones to the site. you can show them how to win some. But just because the are playing and losing does not make them pathetic. you do have to lose to learn.

wacicha wrote:you know not everyone is good at the strategy of risk. some will lose some will lose a lot. By helping the new ones to the site. you can show them how to win some. But just because the are playing and losing does not make them pathetic. you do have to lose to learn.

I know what you are saying but we are talking here about guys not playing to win but deliberately sabotaging games by deadbeating on a huge scale - no way can it be defended in any way.