Conquer Club

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.

Is there more?

Because I'm confused by how the ratings thingy effects the scoring system.

Maybe proof isn't required to understand if a tricycle riding gibbon prefers it's donuts in a bag or a box,
but that doesn't even take into account if they are jelly filled or have sprinkles or who's keeping score.

oVo wrote:Is there more?

Because I'm confused by how the ratings thingy effects the scoring system.

Maybe proof isn't required to understand if a tricycle riding gibbon prefers it's donuts in a bag or a box,
but that doesn't even take into account if they are jelly filled or have sprinkles or who's keeping score.

No. The ratings system does not affect the score. Ratings earn medals, and the attainment of medals is in every way just as valuable as a Conquer Club score, which is to say, it has no value whatsoever.

The very simple point I am trying to make is that the highest scoring players choose to have very few unique opponents. They don't actually risk much of anything when they play.

They are an inbred group. They play the same few people over and over again. They leave so few ratings because they have few opportunities to rate anyone (once you rate a player you cannot change it until you play that same player again. If you play one person 100 times it is only one rating left. If you play 100 unique players, you could leave 100 unique ratings).

I bring this up only because it is more glaring "proof" that the scoring system in place here is a farce.

If this were the case, then they would have less ratings received as well. If they do, then you're correct in your assumption. If they don't, then it seems that high ranked players just don't like giving out ratings.

hecter wrote:If this were the case, then they would have less ratings received as well. If they do, then you're correct in your assumption. If they don't, then it seems that high ranked players just don't like giving out ratings.

You can look it up yourself, just go to the handy scoreboard and look up the ratings received and left.

Real interesting stuff to be found there if you start with the highest ranked player and work down.

Then, look at the percentage of BS freestyle games played by those who might have a fair number of unique opponents (freestyle games against the uninitiated represent perhaps the greatest number of points taken in by these scamsters).

I say "perhaps"...cause I long have believed that if one truly wants to find multis, one would start by examining the top scorers, their play history and if their "opponents" actually exist, separately from the top scorers.

jpliberty wrote:

hecter wrote:If this were the case, then they would have less ratings received as well. If they do, then you're correct in your assumption. If they don't, then it seems that high ranked players just don't like giving out ratings.

You can look it up yourself, just go to the handy scoreboard and look up the ratings received and left.

Real interesting stuff to be found there if you start with the highest ranked player and work down.

Then, look at the percentage of BS freestyle games played by those who might have a fair number of unique opponents (freestyle games against the uninitiated represent perhaps the greatest number of points taken in by these scamsters).

I say "perhaps"...cause I long have believed that if one truly wants to find multis, one would start by examining the top scorers, their play history and if their "opponents" actually exist, separately from the top scorers.

See, the thing is that I don't really care... I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in your statements by saying that you should look at ratings left, when ratings received would provide a much better idea at how many unique players they play.

hecter wrote:

jpliberty wrote:

hecter wrote:If this were the case, then they would have less ratings received as well. If they do, then you're correct in your assumption. If they don't, then it seems that high ranked players just don't like giving out ratings.

You can look it up yourself, just go to the handy scoreboard and look up the ratings received and left.

Real interesting stuff to be found there if you start with the highest ranked player and work down.

Then, look at the percentage of BS freestyle games played by those who might have a fair number of unique opponents (freestyle games against the uninitiated represent perhaps the greatest number of points taken in by these scamsters).

I say "perhaps"...cause I long have believed that if one truly wants to find multis, one would start by examining the top scorers, their play history and if their "opponents" actually exist, separately from the top scorers.

See, the thing is that I don't really care... I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in your statements by saying that you should look at ratings left, when ratings received would provide a much better idea at how many unique players they play.

And I'm just saying, look it up yourself. The facts prove my point, not your surmise. And there is no reason that ratings received would be a better indicator than ratings left. No reason whatsoever, unless, of course, you are one of those who actually believes that Conquer Club's incredibly bogus, rigged, twisted scoring system actually has merit.

And if that is the case, well, it's not worth discussing anything more with you.

How exactly does high ranks not leaving ratings prove that the scoring system is rigged?

Maybe they just prefer to play games over taking time to leave ratings.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:How exactly does high ranks not leaving ratings prove that the scoring system is rigged?

What he said. Some people just don't like to leave ratings. I remember back with the old feedback system somebody had over 200 positive feedbacks and had barely left any at all. It's just the way it is.

i have rated precicely 0 people. which means nothing, except that i don't care enough about the new rating system to bother. this has nothing to do with my score

Split the off topic posts...lets remain on topic about how rigged the scoring system is

Check Chatter Box if you want to continue the other discussion.

And I agree...ratings and scoring aren't really related (except you would expect higher ranked players to have a higher rating).

ParadiceCity9 wrote:How exactly does high ranks not leaving ratings prove that the scoring system is rigged?

If a player's opponents represent a small fraction of Conquer Club's active players then it is inane to bestow high rank.

If Major League Baseball admitted only players who were born in Sioux City how high would the level of competition be? If a pitcher only pitched to 3 hitters, striking out all, would anyone want to put that pitcher in the Hall of Fame?

The scoring system can be gamed and is gamed. One sign of this is the simple fact that some players choose to play only those of a high enough rank (so they don't drop large numbers of points to cooks and the other lowly people ). And, apparently, they play the same people, over and over and over.

Not exactly open to competition and certainly not deserving of recognition as "the best".

It is a free country (game) and people can play who they want. They certainly don't have to play you just because you want it.

bbqpenguin wrote:i have rated precicely 0 people. which means nothing, except that i don't care enough about the new rating system to bother. this has nothing to do with my score

I've not suggested ratings have anything whatsoever to do with score. I've said that both ratings and score are utterly meaningless.

See the problem with these 'envy ' posts is that they have one striking thing in common, they are all authored by crap players !

mpjh wrote:It is a free country (game) and people can play who they want. They certainly don't have to play you just because you want it.

Of course people can choose their opponents. And, that's one way the system is gamed.

And I don't care if higher ranked players won't play me...I don't recognize any achievement in their score nor do I find pleasure in my own score. And, if higher ranked players suddenly were to flood into my games, well, I'd just whup em anyway.

joecoolfrog wrote:See the problem with these 'envy ' posts is that they have one striking thing in common, they are all authored by crap players !

If you are suggesting I envy you your high score you are mistaken. And presumptuous. Crap score? Jeez, look at your record?

I've very clearly stated that most high ranking players are gaming a rigged system. With just a brief glance at your recent games, I've concluded that probably you are a prime example.

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.

mpjh wrote:It is a free country (game) and people can play who they want. They certainly don't have to play you just because you want it.

You make an excellent point, mpjh.

Stalker-types and immature lowlifes would surely disagree with you, but what you say is nonetheless 100% true.

This post bears no direct relation to the other member to whom you originally stated this; I am making a general observation based on your statement.

Have a wonderful day, gentle friends!

mpjh wrote: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.

That does not really address the issue.

The issue is whether or not the scoring system actually reflects each respective player's skill level at the game, which a simple listing of number of opponents defeated does not do.

In order to reflect actual skill level, the statistic would have to take into account the number of games that each respective member has finished, in addition to the number of opponents he defeated in those games.

jpliberty wrote:

mpjh wrote:It is a free country (game) and people can play who they want. They certainly don't have to play you just because you want it.

Of course people can choose their opponents. And, that's one way the system is gamed.

And I don't care if higher ranked players won't play me...I don't recognize any achievement in their score nor do I find pleasure in my own score. And, if higher ranked players suddenly were to flood into my games, well, I'd just whup em anyway.

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.

KLOBBER wrote:

mpjh wrote: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.

That does not really address the issue.

The issue is whether or not the scoring system actually reflects each respective player's skill level at the game, which a simple listing of number of opponents defeated does not do.

In order to reflect actual skill level, the statistic would have to take into account the number of games that each respective member has finished, in addition to the number of opponents he defeated in those games.

It would at least let everyone know that the players statistics are based on a wide or limited range of opponents.

mpjh wrote: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?

jpliberty wrote:

mpjh wrote: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.