Conquer Club

for the last couple of weeks i kept looking at the scoreboard to see who was #1 n if sjsnap had an available games BUT he hasnt for the last couple of weeks!! it seema alot of players on the front page of scoreboard would rather not play and keep their score then keep battling to show their skills or lose to let someone BETTER win. kinda messed up don't cha think??

says you, private! I think we're waiting for a 'NO POINTS' game option

why would the conqueror play you?

if he lost because of bad dice it could loose him the ranking!

there is a thing called real life...get one

should every premium member not accept a challenge or face embarresment??

Declining it is cowardice and just shows how points obsessed a player may be. If you think your that much better, play him.
If you lose, play him again and again until you get your points back, if you are actually as good as your rank shows?

Otherwise any player is just relying on team games with other good players who play well together to maintain their rank.
A real talented player should never be fearful because at the end of the day he knows he is good enough?


I have never challanged somebody in a forum or pm but if i did i would be pissed if they said no because my rank didnt match theirs!

And yeah i am aware that there ar many players i just described hiding with great ranks in team games mopping up points against who ever is stupid enough to challenge without a praticed team. i.e. cooks, or stupid newbies over awed by the ranks they see they are playing against!

sjnap always plays teams, but thats a skill in its own... hes like, never lost one

liamo6969 wrote:should every premium member not accept a challenge or face embarresment??

do you realize how many PM's people on the top of the ranks get, daily, calling them out for games? do you realize how many people on the top of the ranks don't even check their PM's from people they don't know, because they are just full of game numbers for them to join against lower ranked players, etc? and furthermore, alot of the higher ranked players you dis for only playing team games, may have gotten there by playing team games. team games require their own special skill set, just like freestyle, just like escalating cards, just like no cards. you can't come down on a player for sticking to the type of games they like, and that they are successful at!! keep running your mouth liam, you are amusing.-0

Kemmler wrote:says you, private! I think we're waiting for a 'NO POINTS' game option

Ain't gonna happen.

Optimus Prime wrote:

Kemmler wrote:says you, private! I think we're waiting for a 'NO POINTS' game option

Ain't gonna happen.

i believe that was sarcasm... check your "humor fluid", you appear to be down about a quart...-0

owenshooter wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:

Kemmler wrote:says you, private! I think we're waiting for a 'NO POINTS' game option

Ain't gonna happen.

i believe that was sarcasm... check your "humor fluid", you appear to be down about a quart...-0

Give me a break. Just let a guy answer without getting on him.

You spelled ConquerOr wrong.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:You spelled ConquerOr wrong.

Give me a break. Just let a guy answer without getting on him about his spelling.-0

i'm ranked 94th and i have 704 games completed. only 144 are private. that means 80% of my games are either public or in tourneys (against all ranks).
so not all of the people on front page protect their scores.

to be honest i don't like the guys that are afraid to play public games. if you can't beat a few sergeants then you don't deserve your rank but at the same time i can understand the fear of encountering poor players and deadbeats. (even though i've seen colonels and majors that played like crap)

DiM wrote:i'm ranked 94th and i have 704 games completed. only 144 are private. that means 80% of my games are either public or in tourneys (against all ranks).
so not all of the people on front page protect their scores.

to be honest i don't like the guys that are afraid to play public games. if you can't beat a few sergeants then you don't deserve your rank but at the same time i can understand the fear of encountering poor players and deadbeats. (even though i've seen colonels and majors that played like crap)

Good point DiM.

1244 games, 76 private for me. 94% against all comers. Of those 76 private games, over 50 were against AXE when we had a private tourno going on. Take those out and the figure rises to over 98% public games. If you look through my games, I really don't care who I play, they are from just about all ranks.

Ya 728 of my games are private/tourney, and I used to be on the first page

edit: only 351 were actual private games though, just fyi

I do believe he meant that the poster's rank was private, when they posted

blakebowling wrote:I do believe he meant that the poster's rank was private, when they posted

well, you are missing the point of the evolution of the discussion. DiM made comments backed by others, that show he personally plays many public games that are open to anyone to join, regardless of rank. this has nothing to do with the OP's rank or the comments made about it. this is just the way the conversation has evolved... and i agree with DiM and Fruitcake. there are plenty of public games open for anyone to join that high ranked players are in, you just have to look for them.-0

Many people believe that by playing public games shows less skill, showing that you can noob bash the lower ranks.

It's a never ending cycle of saying the other side sucks.

Those who play only private are "scared to lose" to the lower ranks and horde their points.
Those who play mostly public are noob bashing the lower ranks to get to the top in a dishonorable manner.

Doesn't matter if you play private or public... if you're a high rank you apparently don't deserve it.

FabledIntegral wrote:Many people believe that by playing public games shows less skill, showing that you can noob bash the lower ranks.

It's a never ending cycle of saying the other side sucks.

Those who play only private are "scared to lose" to the lower ranks and horde their points.
Those who play mostly public are noob bashing the lower ranks to get to the top in a dishonorable manner.

Doesn't matter if you play private or public... if you're a high rank you apparently don't deserve it.

noob bashing is usually considered when you play against people that have 1000 points or less.

i don't see how playing against some lieutenants and captains can be seen as noob bashing and yet many colonels brigadiers and higher won't play against lieutenants. why? well because they risk 35-40 points and they win just 10-15 and this means they might need a 65-75 win percentage to gain profit and they know a lieutenant/captain will be good enough to not lose that much. so in this case it comes down to the fear of losing points.

for example i'm in a tourney right now and in round 1 i had to play 6 games each game with 6 players.
i won 4 and lost 2. total outcome +22 points.
so despite having a great win percentage (66%) much bigger than the average chance (16.67%) i only managed to get 22 points from 6 games. imagine if i had an average %. i would have probably been down at least 200 points.

some people on the front page would have surely not taken this chance and the sole reason would have been the fear of losing points because i can assure everybody all the games were very good in al aspects (chat, attendance, strategy, fairplay, etc)

but in the end it comes down to just 1 thing points. some people like them so much that they would do anything not to lose them. this includes noob farming, exclusive team games, specializing, etc. but honestly i do not care. so what if they care about their points? this overcarring only makes them miss out on a lot of fun. i love tourneys and i play a lot of them against all kinds of ranks and i love it. who cares if in the end i come up a few hundred points short as long as i have fun?

take a look at klobber. he plays only circus maximus vs new recruits. he has more points than me. so what? does that make him a better player than me? surely not. does that make him more respected? again a big NO. but more important does he have as much fun as i am? i highly doubt it

DiM wrote:but more important does he have as much fun as i am? i highly doubt it

That's the only thing I "might" disagree with. Who are you to say how much "fun" another player is having. It's seems pretty clear to me that klobber enjoys what he does. Why else would he do it? I know I wouldn't enjoy that very much, but to each his own, right?

Timminz wrote:

DiM wrote:but more important does he have as much fun as i am? i highly doubt it

That's the only thing I "might" disagree with. Who are you to say how much "fun" another player is having. It's seems pretty clear to me that klobber enjoys what he does. Why else would he do it? I know I wouldn't enjoy that very much, but to each his own, right?

that's why i said i highly doubt it and i didn't say he surely isn't having fun

DiM wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Many people believe that by playing public games shows less skill, showing that you can noob bash the lower ranks.

It's a never ending cycle of saying the other side sucks.

Those who play only private are "scared to lose" to the lower ranks and horde their points.
Those who play mostly public are noob bashing the lower ranks to get to the top in a dishonorable manner.

Doesn't matter if you play private or public... if you're a high rank you apparently don't deserve it.

noob bashing is usually considered when you play against people that have 1000 points or less.

i don't see how playing against some lieutenants and captains can be seen as noob bashing and yet many colonels brigadiers and higher won't play against lieutenants. why? well because they risk 35-40 points and they win just 10-15 and this means they might need a 65-75 win percentage to gain profit and they know a lieutenant/captain will be good enough to not lose that much. so in this case it comes down to the fear of losing points.

for example i'm in a tourney right now and in round 1 i had to play 6 games each game with 6 players.
i won 4 and lost 2. total outcome +22 points.
so despite having a great win percentage (66%) much bigger than the average chance (16.67%) i only managed to get 22 points from 6 games. imagine if i had an average %. i would have probably been down at least 200 points.

some people on the front page would have surely not taken this chance and the sole reason would have been the fear of losing points because i can assure everybody all the games were very good in al aspects (chat, attendance, strategy, fairplay, etc)

but in the end it comes down to just 1 thing points. some people like them so much that they would do anything not to lose them. this includes noob farming, exclusive team games, specializing, etc. but honestly i do not care. so what if they care about their points? this overcarring only makes them miss out on a lot of fun. i love tourneys and i play a lot of them against all kinds of ranks and i love it. who cares if in the end i come up a few hundred points short as long as i have fun?

take a look at klobber. he plays only circus maximus vs new recruits. he has more points than me. so what? does that make him a better player than me? surely not. does that make him more respected? again a big NO. but more important does he have as much fun as i am? i highly doubt it

The current lieutenant rating, to me, is hardly different than a Sergeant rating. Even captains are questionable. It's not unless I either know the person, or see a Major status that I'm generally more comfortable around the person.

FabledIntegral wrote:The current lieutenant rating, to me, is hardly different than a Sergeant rating. Even captains are questionable. It's not unless I either know the person, or see a Major status that I'm generally more comfortable around the person.

rank doesn't guarantee skill at all
i've seen a LOT of majors that truly sucked. they made mistakes i didn't make even when i was a new recruit, they played with their heart not their mind, they could not analyze the map, etc.

DiM wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:The current lieutenant rating, to me, is hardly different than a Sergeant rating. Even captains are questionable. It's not unless I either know the person, or see a Major status that I'm generally more comfortable around the person.

rank doesn't guarantee skill at all
i've seen a LOT of majors that truly sucked. they made mistakes i didn't make even when i was a new recruit, they played with their heart not their mind, they could not analyze the map, etc.

Hence "generally more comfortable"

DiM wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:The current lieutenant rating, to me, is hardly different than a Sergeant rating. Even captains are questionable. It's not unless I either know the person, or see a Major status that I'm generally more comfortable around the person.

rank doesn't guarantee skill at all
i've seen a LOT of majors that truly sucked. they made mistakes i didn't make even when i was a new recruit, they played with their heart not their mind, they could not analyze the map, etc.

Yeah, I find ways to suck all the time, and look at my rank...

To me rank doesnt figure in very much as most of the games I play are decided in the first few rounds by dice, deploy, and in team games, how well the teams are connected at crucial points. Everyone talks a great strategy mostly because most players strategies are very similar ex. Classic map - control of Aussie or SA and the game is over. Its all about who does it better, and Ive seen cooks that are very good at controlling the game early.