Conquer Club

Are prepared to believe absolutely any reason other than the simple fact that, in general, players with higher ranks got that way because they're better at this game?

Seriously, regardless of the topic, whenever rank comes up, it's just flat out taboo to imply that maybe, just maybe you're a private or a cadet because you're more inclined to make poor moves or less inclined to make good ones. Understand that this same cadet or private is likely the last person who should have an opinion on their own play.

Obviously nobody makes bad moves on purpose, so they likely have no idea that they're making one or they wouldn't do it. It's just that they make a move that seems fine enough to them, then, "completely out of the blue and through some luck of mythical proportions," some higher ranking player comes along and takes over the game. Chalk it up, yet again, for the great dice that higher ranked players always get. No chance at all that this seemingly fine move actually had something to do with the outcome.

It's completely baffling. Now, this isn't to say that there aren't exceptions to the rule but, they're just that, exceptions. A high ranked player may not always make the absolute best move 100% of the time but they almost never make really bad ones, rarely make sort of bad ones, and are the most likely at the table to see a creative way to turn the tide. It's why they win games. It's why, more times than not, when I'm in a game that has 3 ranked and 3 non-ranked, 3 of the last 4 and at least 2 of the last 3 standing are those with rank. And, no, it's not because we're gunning for the low ranked players. We're all trying to win and the first step to winning is surviving the early rounds.

Sorry for the rant, but this crap just gets old from time to time.

Oh, and the title of thread, is intended to be an obvious generalization inspired by the idiotic threads that spawned this one.

Why thats just plain ridiculous, detlef. My rank is absolutely not related to fact that I've played only a handful of matches (and lost the majority), its because every time I go to sleep you secretly hack my account and use the secret points transfer facility on it!

Personally, I absolutely detest the line "everyone has their own strategy that works best for them."

Haha... I just find that as an excuse "I really suck and don't know what I'm doing so I attack what's next to me."

detlef wrote:A high ranked player may not always make the absolute best move 100% of the time but they almost never make really bad ones, rarely make sort of bad ones, and are the most likely at the table to see a creative way to turn the tide. It's why they win games.

Dunno. I make disastrous moves all the time. But my continuing live affair with the dice allows me to come out on top 7.3 times out of 10 anyways. I can really recommend a good dice to anyone wishing to climb the scoreboard.

detlef wrote:Are prepared to believe absolutely any reason other than the simple fact that, in general, players with higher ranks got that way because they're better at this game?

I won't necessarily disagree with you on this, but I would say that over time if you play more games you are bound to increase your chances of winning and as a result your rank raises. This game is a combination of luck and strategy. You just can't discount the dice factor. But I agree for the most part that higher ranked players are just plain good and deserve their status.

deronimo wrote:

detlef wrote:Are prepared to believe absolutely any reason other than the simple fact that, in general, players with higher ranks got that way because they're better at this game?

I won't necessarily disagree with you on this, but I would say that over time if you play more games you are bound to increase your chances of winning and as a result your rank raises. This game is a combination of luck and strategy. You just can't discount the dice factor. But I agree for the most part that higher ranked players are just plain good and deserve their status.

The "over time you're bound to win more" argument is not valid. Your rank is not a function of how much you win, rather how often you do vs how often you lose and to how many opponents of what rank. In theory, your rank should not change with more games played unless you get better.

well i can't speak for everyone, but i got my rank purely from unprecedented luck and a few of robin's dice patches...

i make bad moves on purpouse sometimes..... either not waiting cause i dont want to or getting a game moving.

What I really love is the "Oh, I'm only playing for fun, that's why I'm a cadet" argument, as if fun and winning are mutually exclusive concepts.

Or the "I play all sorts of game types and I'm not an elitist snob that only plays other elitist snobs" argument, that's always fun. News flash: people of high rank had to get there in the first place to take part in "elitist" private games.

I suppose it comes down to the old maxim about excuses and assholes. More to the point, no one wants to consider themselves shitty at a game they play frequently, sort of like how 75% of people consider themselves above-average drivers, or fully 90% of people consider themselves WAY above average when it comes to administering oral.

Gee I wonder how many are higher ranked because they were carried there by team mates and players they play with over and over again.

Ive looked at the top ten ranked. It reminds me of professional wrestling sometimes. How many of the high and mighty have been inducted into the hall of shame? I remember those same fallen being defended as if someone had insulted their mom.

frankly who really gives a crap?

Yep I also love the old 'only play for fun ' excuse, maybe the better players just get more fun out of playing well and actually winning from time to time

Iron Butterfly wrote:Gee I wonder how many are higher ranked because they were carried there by team mates and players they play with over and over again.

Far less than you think. Don't fixate on the top 10. I'm simply talking about "higher ranked" players, as in about 2000 pts or higher. Most of us play all sorts of different games, don't cheat, or use doubles as a crutch.

Well, players choose their score by choosing the games they play. Though it would be fair to assume many would like to win more, it doesnt mean all are out to hit the highest score they can. One of my most fun periods on this site was when i dropped 1500 points largely playing speed assasin games and other type games. It simply wasnt possible to win points over time in those games. But the games themselves were fun. And there were many playing them, and it was obvious their score meant little to them. At the same time, winning the 1200 points back in three days was fun too, but I cant honestly say the games were as fun.


As in the other threads, I think labeling entire groups is just a cheap way out, and the author of this one is obviously making a point. Its very easy to say low ranks suck, or high ranks are arrogant, but its always the cowards way of doing business, and is usually inspired by one or two examples of a player of that rank doing something. It will always happen, but it wont stop me for one from pointing it out every time I see it. But Ill always point to the actual person and their individual actions in the tread.. not blanketing their entire group with my complaints.

EDIT: wait a minute...

Apologies

I hate playing new recruits :S. I fear them and will specifically avoid them if possible. Gotta love the guys when you have 3 territories in Aussie and like 10 armies total while they have 4, will still deploy there hoping to get it or something. Or the people that feel that they are the one that needs to limit the other player in a game even though they are the weakest.

My favorite is that last one. Someone is the strongest player, and the weakest player on the board will continually throw all their armies at the person simply because "if I don't do it, he'll get even stronger, and no one else is doing anything..."

News flash - it would be better to throw the game than take it upon yourself. If you stopped wasting your armies vs the top player, the other players might move in to stop him, but they are going to accumulate their armies if they can...

Then of course there's the escalating games... I don't know how many times I've had my stacks autoed in those .

detlef wrote:

Iron Butterfly wrote:Gee I wonder how many are higher ranked because they were carried there by team mates and players they play with over and over again.

Far less than you think. Don't fixate on the top 10. I'm simply talking about "higher ranked" players, as in about 2000 pts or higher. Most of us play all sorts of different games, don't cheat, or use doubles as a crutch.

agreed

Incandenza wrote:What I really love is the "Oh, I'm only playing for fun, that's why I'm a cadet" argument, as if fun and winning are mutually exclusive concepts.

Or the "I play all sorts of game types and I'm not an elitist snob that only plays other elitist snobs" argument, that's always fun. News flash: people of high rank had to get there in the first place to take part in "elitist" private games.

It depends on if this is a complaint or a RESPONSE to whining by higher rankers who think they "ought" to win every game or that they should never have to play anyone of lower rank. Or even just an attempt to head off complaints from someone who (based on the old feedback system) had a habit of it.

Incandenza wrote:I suppose it comes down to the old maxim about excuses and assholes.

True, but some are larger than others.

Incandenza wrote:More to the point, no one wants to consider themselves shitty at a game they play frequently

Wrong ... in the several THOUSAND games I have played against folks of various ranks, most I play with are quite happy to just play ... win or lose. Losing isn't what spoils the game, its the attitudes -- whining from losers AND winners. I don't care how "good" you think you are. If you are a jerk ... you will go on my ignore list.

detlef wrote:Are prepared to believe absolutely any reason other than the simple fact that, in general, players with higher ranks got that way because they're better at this game?

Obviously nobody makes bad moves on purpose, so they likely have no idea that they're making one or they wouldn't do it. It's just that they make a move that seems fine enough to them, then, "completely out of the blue and through some luck of mythical proportions," some higher ranking player comes along and takes over the game. Chalk it up, yet again, for the great dice that higher ranked players always get. No chance at all that this seemingly fine move actually had something to do with the outcome.

I agree. I am not the best of players. I know it. I get quite tired of hearing folks blame the "dice".. particularly when they try to bring in statistics, but quickly make it clear that they can barely spell the word.

HOWEVER, let's make one thing clear. There are jerks of all ranks, all "stripes". They go on my ignore list. Thankfully, my ignore list is fairly short.

BUT, a point made in another thread is also true. Manners is a two way street. More often than not, you have a choice. When someone voices a complaint, you can "rise to the bait" or you can try to deflect it with humor, a reasoned retort, etc. More often than not, when you make it clear you won't be a sounding board or co-sympathizer, they quit. OR, sometimes it pays just to sympathize a little ...and then move on.

FabledIntegral wrote:I hate playing new recruits :S. I fear them and will specifically avoid them if possible. Gotta love the guys when you have 3 territories in Aussie and like 10 armies total while they have 4, will still deploy there hoping to get it or something. Or the people that feel that they are the one that needs to limit the other player in a game even though they are the weakest.

My favorite is that last one. Someone is the strongest player, and the weakest player on the board will continually throw all their armies at the person simply because "if I don't do it, he'll get even stronger, and no one else is doing anything..."

News flash - it would be better to throw the game than take it upon yourself. If you stopped wasting your armies vs the top player, the other players might move in to stop him, but they are going to accumulate their armies if they can...

Then of course there's the escalating games... I don't know how many times I've had my stacks autoed in those .

But don't assume that someone new to CC is new to a certain Hasbro game. I'm darn good at classic Risk, and if my main concern was to get points/rank, I'd concentrate on that, and on a style I like best, with game options I like best. instead I'm having a high old time experimenting with different maps and options.

I've decided I don't much like the way "fog of war" works - foggier than maybe it should be. So I'd need to be convinced that it adds to the game on a particular map befoer I'd play it again. I have my opinions about certain other options, and have tried a few maps now, some of which I like better than others (Doodle Earth with more than four is pretty much a lottery for example). I'm getting a gauge for which maps are just pot luck with too many players, etc. But generally I'm having fun exploring new ideas, and I think I'll always be a sucker for maps I've not tried before.

Oh, my low rank is because I suck at this game. I'm perfectly willing to admit that. And the vast majority of high-rankers got there because they know how to play this game far better than I.

But there are people who earn their high rank because they game the system. They know that if you start this kind of game repeatedly, you're more likely to go up against new recruits. They know that if you start a doubles match with a partner you're used to, you'll almost always fight a pickup team that doesn't know eachother. They know that if you specialize in one complex map, you'll be able to beat people who don't know it's strategy very well, even if they would destroy you on Classic, or almost any other map.

Those are the people I don't respect, and the reason I don't care at all about the ranking system. Because while most people get a high rank by being very smart and working very hard, it's easier to get a high rank by playing a sort of game against the website itself.

Someday I hope to improve my skills enough to compete in the big-leages. I currently have no knowledge of strategy. But I will never waste my time raising my rank via careful game-choosing tactics. The only strategizing that's worthwhile is what takes place after the game starts, not before it.

anyone who's rank FLUCTUATES is an average player. anyone who is ALWAYS on the top, and actually used decent methods (like poo, NOT like KLOBBER), is truly a good player.

Not that my opinion really matters here, but I think people with really high ranks underestimate players with low ranks. I'm somewhere in the middle and I play against complete noobs and some of the elite ranked players. My winning percentage against both of these groups is about the same. Granted, the noobs tend to make more tactical mistakes which can cost them a game, but the higher ranked players are not immune to these mistakes. I've been told by many a high ranked player that they never saw me coming and that I was one of the better strategists on this site, but I'll be the first to admit that I make mistakes pretty much every game. Usually its just because I'm not paying attention or thinking about a different game. You really never can know if attacking that seemingly unimportant country will piss off another player because he/she was about to use it as a staging point for some great game ending move.

One thing that does really bother me is when people complain about dice. More often than not, the people complaining about dice are the ones that attack 12 vs 10 and somehow expect to come out of that with 8 or 9 armies left over. It really never occurs to them that attacking a force of similar size only weakens you both, and they certainly never remember that ties go to the defending armies. In my experience, games are typically decided by starting position and strategy regardless of how fair or unfair the dice may seem to be. One can overcome a bad starting position if they are patient and stay out of the way of two warring factions.

i had a Private get mad at me for waiting in the weeds while 3 other players attacke each other and then springing my move to win the game. He said something like "I see how you high ranked players play, you let everyone else fight while you sit back."
I guess im supposed to join in the fun and kill myself along with everyone else.
He gave me a 2 rating for fair play.
Absurd

IronE.GLE wrote:
One thing that does really bother me is when people complain about dice. More often than not, the people complaining about dice are the ones that attack 12 vs 10 and somehow expect to come out of that with 8 or 9 armies left over. It really never occurs to them that attacking a force of similar size only weakens you both, and they certainly never remember that ties go to the defending armies. In my experience, games are typically decided by starting position and strategy regardless of how fair or unfair the dice may seem to be. One can overcome a bad starting position if they are patient and stay out of the way of two warring factions.

I totally agree with that-- funny that exact same percentage was used against me and the same result followed. ' I had shit dice yada yada bs', for a cash that was so low that it would've rendered it useless even if he were successful. Case where a successful kill gives you no gain but a failed attempt is a game ending hanging.

I've seen a lot of players with a lower ranking play better than a lot of those guys that play 'the upper shelf' private games. Hell at least the lower ranks don't have a false perception of their skills.