Let's be honest--

[Elijah S]

My skill should easily have me at about 5000+ points but I seem to keep getting into games with some 11 year-old wasted on Nyquil, or some lame-ass who insists on attacking me whilst another, better positioned player runs away with the game.

And let's not even talk about dice.

[ClockworK]

around 1100

im shit.

[Seulessliathan]

i agree with AAFitz

score depends on game types you play, not only luck and skill

a lot of players would be around 1500 points instead of being a major if they would join each type of game against random opponents, including me, but i will join these games now like he did, lose points and have a lot of fun.

[jiminski]

Of course Fitz is spot on in his assessment Seul but we mongrel players must remain magnanimous or it appears to be sour grapes



as an aside i think Scotty should be higher than a major, I have rarely seen mistakes from him and i feel he should be at least Colonel.

[bryguy]

my rank (if my dice were better, which i get 1s almost 99% of the time) would be about 3000

[jiminski]

my rank (if my dice were better, which i get 1s almost 99% of the time) would be about 3000

use the force more!

[insomniacdude]

Until somewhat recently I would say that I should lie at about 1600-1700 points, but I've seen my gameplay noticeably improve in the past two months or so, so I don't know where I "truly" lie now.

[bob72]

we are where we are.
i think points are a pretty good guide to how consistently good and solid a player is.

there can of course be slight anomalies based upon playing format countering point inflation. Conquerors and their immediate lesser minions have always used what was available to reach the top.

couldn't agree less. Some people will only play similar ranked people in closed games. Others play public.

The latter simply have 0 chance of becoming the former but we'll never know as the former won't ever play the latter in any tournaments.

[Splash_x]

I deserve my rank the way it is... serg 1st class

[bbqpenguin]

i think i'm actually about where i belong, floating between cfc and sfc depending on which way the wind is blowing

[jnd94]

I try and mix up my game types up, but I think I deserve the rank of Seargent. If I go up, I either won a doodle assassin or am having a good luck streak.....if Im down, probably the opposite

[codeblue1018]

I think I am overrated. I would put myself somewhere around corporal.

[jiminski]

we are where we are.
i think points are a pretty good guide to how consistently good and solid a player is.

there can of course be slight anomalies based upon playing format countering point inflation. Conquerors and their immediate lesser minions have always used what was available to reach the top.

couldn't agree less. Some people will only play similar ranked people in closed games. Others play public.

The latter simply have 0 chance of becoming the former but we'll never know as the former won't ever play the latter in any tournaments.

sorry mate but i have played both private games against most of the top ranked players; Trips, Doubs, and Singles and many public games against all comers in each format.
Without meaning to say this out of hand or be rude ... you appear to have no idea what you are talking about.
the chaps on the top of the front page are consistently the best players and certainly the most dedicated to not making mistakes.

the difference in playing the best Singles Esc. players compared to even an all 2000 point minimum game is vast. It is chess compared to draughts (checkers).
Also most high ranking teams play and consistently win enough to maintain a positive return against lower ranked teams in the face of the point handicap.

Your point regarding total protectionism at the top and lack of movement from below, just can't be true! The point total on the front page has increased hugely; if none of them played anyone but each other, the sum of the score would be stagnant.. it is far from that.

My last point in my little mini rant... is that those at the top of the scoreboard did not just arrive there, they fought their way their .. with skill guile and bloodymindedness from the bottom where everyone starts!

It just makes logical sense .. the highest scorers win more games .. so they have to be doing something right. Right?
Yes there are very fine players who teeter around 2000 and lower due to game choice but much lower than that and you just can not realistically compare the skill level, particularly if they have been at it for a long time.

hehe ok i will take a breath now.

but just to put this into context .. this is not a defense of myself (as i am not high ranked) it is a defense of logic in the face of prejudice

[Ditocoaf]

I'm right where I belong. I've never played risk, but I've learned the game fast, so I'm a decent if unexperienced player. I have no strategy yet, but I can think enough to win the occasional game and keep myself out of the cook range. Hopefully I'll start learning and improving quickly enough.

Hey, actually, I just realized-- by not being a cook, I'm better off than 25% of all active players! I mention that statistic so much, but I've never thought about what that means to me... maybe I am overranked after all.

[detlef]

I seem to be stuck in the low 2000s and that seems to be about right. I rarely lose to non-officers, hold my own against my rank (but don't win often enough to advance beyond it) and typically get exposed by those ranked ahead of me. So, I'm at 2300 right now and don't expect to do much better than that unless I figure out a few more wrinkles.

[wrestler1ump]

Are you currently under or over ranked? Lot of players that I see should be ranked a lot higher than they are-- an equal amount of players shouldn't be where they are. Put aside dice and whatever excuse you have for not winning-- and honestly assess where you think your rank should be. Take in consideration in the long run that you may exceed that rank but what rank can you maintain..... consistently maintain?

2000 if wankers like you had the balls to face me.

[wrestler1ump]

let's be honest ... who cares?

It is an interesting discussion if you care about score. I personally got discouraged from not having any strong players willing to play me and sunk back down to cook.

[wrestler1ump]

considering i rarely play any game other than 1v1, i think my rank should be consierably lower. my strategy in games with more players is usually shit for beans.

maybe like 1100-1200 if i played legit risk

Not exactly sure what would be bad strategy in multiplayer games other than secret alliances and multiple accounts. Singles games actually make it harder to gain points. Maybe things are different on some of those gimmicky maps like Age of Realms or Age of Might.

[wrestler1ump]

I'm right where I belong. I've never played risk, but I've learned the game fast, so I'm a decent if unexperienced player. I have no strategy yet, but I can think enough to win the occasional game and keep myself out of the cook range. Hopefully I'll start learning and improving quickly enough.

Hey, actually, I just realized-- by not being a cook, I'm better off than 25% of all active players! I mention that statistic so much, but I've never thought about what that means to me... maybe I am overranked after all.

That's pretty good for the first 100 games or so, but after that you should be moving up the ranks with experience.

[wrestler1ump]

I think I am overrated. I would put myself somewhere around corporal.

Your secret alliance with Scott-land helps you out. Sorry had to say it.

[wrestler1ump]

Until somewhat recently I would say that I should lie at about 1600-1700 points, but I've seen my gameplay noticeably improve in the past two months or so, so I don't know where I "truly" lie now.

Depends how many games you play. If you're a premium member and playing a lot of speed games, then your rating should go up. If you don't play a lot of games, then the dice will have more of an effect and you will either go up big time, stay about the same, or take a big hit.

codeblue1018 wrote:
I think I am overrated. I would put myself somewhere around corporal.


Your secret alliance with Scott-land helps you out. Sorry had to say it.

[jpliberty]

rank is fairly meaningless. At highest, I have reached just below 2000 a few times, and consistently go up and down from 1800 to the 1400's. I can drop or gain 200, 300 or 400 points in a few days if I am playing alot...and I do go up and down like that all the time.

The games I play almost all are games I create, meaning anyone can join. Put one clueless player in a 4 way game and there is no way a real good player can count on winning...that one clueless player is another random element, like dice rolls and cards are random, as is the initial placement of armies.

I play almost exclusively card games, with unlimited fortifications. Luck is the most important component in all of these games, on all maps, whether or not you use cards.

There is not a single high scorer on this system who couldn't be beat by me on the games I play---and I'd win and lose about 50% of the time (I average I think somewhere over 60% win in my two player games, some of those of course are against people who don't know what they are doing...if every opponent was a knowledgeable player, I'd win only about 50%).

Rank has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Most of the high scorers game the system. they play only games with players of their choosing...they don't want to risk taking on all comers. They also play games designed to get higher scores.

[clapper011]

I think this thread should be re-named "wrestler1ump".......

[codeblue1018]

I think I am overrated. I would put myself somewhere around corporal.

Your secret alliance with Scott-land helps you out. Sorry had to say it.

This is the exact reason why you are flamed on a regular basis as well as a member of just about everyones ignore list. If you have evidence to back your claim, post it in the proper thread. Let me answer that for you, you don't! I love comments like these that come from, hey what do you know, a convicted cheater. Please ban this tool. Waste of complete space! Further reinforcing others from not knowing you to ignoring you immediately, Well done,

[bob72]

we are where we are.
i think points are a pretty good guide to how consistently good and solid a player is.

there can of course be slight anomalies based upon playing format countering point inflation. Conquerors and their immediate lesser minions have always used what was available to reach the top.

couldn't agree less. Some people will only play similar ranked people in closed games. Others play public.

The latter simply have 0 chance of becoming the former but we'll never know as the former won't ever play the latter in any tournaments.

sorry mate but i have played both private games against most of the top ranked players; Trips, Doubs, and Singles and many public games against all comers in each format.
Without meaning to say this out of hand or be rude ... you appear to have no idea what you are talking about.
the chaps on the top of the front page are consistently the best players and certainly the most dedicated to not making mistakes.

the difference in playing the best Singles Esc. players compared to even an all 2000 point minimum game is vast. It is chess compared to draughts (checkers).
Also most high ranking teams play and consistently win enough to maintain a positive return against lower ranked teams in the face of the point handicap.

Your point regarding total protectionism at the top and lack of movement from below, just can't be true! The point total on the front page has increased hugely; if none of them played anyone but each other, the sum of the score would be stagnant.. it is far from that.

My last point in my little mini rant... is that those at the top of the scoreboard did not just arrive there, they fought their way their .. with skill guile and bloodymindedness from the bottom where everyone starts!

It just makes logical sense .. the highest scorers win more games .. so they have to be doing something right. Right?
Yes there are very fine players who teeter around 2000 and lower due to game choice but much lower than that and you just can not realistically compare the skill level, particularly if they have been at it for a long time.

hehe ok i will take a breath now.

but just to put this into context .. this is not a defense of myself (as i am not high ranked) it is a defense of logic in the face of prejudice

I'm not saying that some of those at the top don't deserve it, in fact everyone at the top deserves to be there even if they just got their points from a battle royale

However, I'm currently near 1400 points to get to the next level realisitically I should stop playing "?" and privates and start choosing my gaming buddies better. Start looking for the 1400 points tournaments (although the cliques usually start at 1600) etc in order to get high points (or to put it another way in order to only lose 18 points per game instead of being offed by a cook for 60 points (which takes 4 games to recover from).

Also if you play a 8 player game your chances of winnning are reduced. 1v1 games give you a 50% chance of winning get good at them and you can be massively over ranked. I have suggested a while back that instead of one rank the statistics nut in me would like to see points tallies let's start with singles, doubles, trips totals and perhaps totals for each gametype normal, esc, seq, freestyle.

I think my terminator score would be high as would my doubles. My standard 6 player classic score would be rotten but I've fared better on certain other maps. Age of Merchants for example.

To get over 2000 points requires playing simply to guard your points total, I have no beef with that but it in no way reflects the standard of players who don't play like that nor want to points whore but perfer to play a more varied bunch of people.

I'm not saying they don't but I did tag along with some very nice people for a while and they seemed to play each other alot. It did me no good though as I was only getting 11 points per game.

Players who are top of the ladders consistently play well against other top players thus improve their game they "rarely" play lower class players thus lower class players rarely get the chance to improve their game.

Now can you see what I mean?

Don't just listen to me have a look at recent games of the top 10 on the ladder.

PEACE.