Greatwhite wrote: I will play with any rank providing they have a 100% attendance rating and decent feedback. Hell, I stand to get more points when playing with lower ranks on my team.




providing that they don't beat you also..

Moderator: Community Team
Greatwhite wrote: I will play with any rank providing they have a 100% attendance rating and decent feedback. Hell, I stand to get more points when playing with lower ranks on my team.
Timminz wrote:lancehoch wrote:I do enjoy these threads. The top ranks get ragged on for only playing other top players. Then in another thread the top ranked people will get more abuse for only preying on new recruits. I am confused, which is it?
It's both, and nothing in between. Anyone with a rank over 2500 doesn't deserve it.![]()
comic boy wrote:...To further assume that throwing baseless ( and unsupported ) insults at respected players is advantageous to ones argument argues a degree of senility that can only be pitied. The thing is that the likes of Scott,Poo and Joe will continue to play enjoyable ,hard fought games and other players will consider their level of expertise to be worth aiming for, this liberty oaf will however carry on doing little more than throwing dice all day and be of similar significance to the shit on the sole of ones shoe,
jpliberty wrote:comic boy wrote:...To further assume that throwing baseless ( and unsupported ) insults at respected players is advantageous to ones argument argues a degree of senility that can only be pitied. The thing is that the likes of Scott,Poo and Joe will continue to play enjoyable ,hard fought games and other players will consider their level of expertise to be worth aiming for, this liberty oaf will however carry on doing little more than throwing dice all day and be of similar significance to the shit on the sole of ones shoe,
Respected? Perhaps respected by the 1% to 3% of the CC players any of them have ever defeated. Unknown and untested by the vast majority of CC players.
Tisha wrote:Greatwhite wrote: I will play with any rank providing they have a 100% attendance rating and decent feedback. Hell, I stand to get more points when playing with lower ranks on my team.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
providing that they don't beat you also..
jpliberty wrote:AAFitz wrote:im sending you the game numbers to 5 games... good luck
For the record though.. your point is completely backwards... its much harder gaining points from the top players than the less ranked players. Joecoolfrog is one hard guy to beat. He plays few games against the best players on the site, surgically and strategically, while players like me take the majority of my points from lesser qualified players.
Youve actually proven the usefulness and reason for the scoring system most unwittingly Im sure
Oh, I'll do battle anytime. Answer me this: why now? Why is it that although I've defeated approximately 10% of the Conquer Club players, you, and your "exalted" buddies, "the best" never have joined one of my frequently posted games?
Answer: it would drop you in points.
That is the long and the short of it.
I recently sent out invites, specifically excluding anyone below the rank of Sgt. In the few days it took to complete those games I gained approx. 200pts. Lost em right back when I went back to open, public games.
Openness, public, are two words you are yours don't acknowledge. You are neither open nor public, except with your blind, stupid and assinine pomposity.
Now, I'll go look and see if you actually did send me any game numbers, then I'll kick your butt.
jpliberty wrote:oh and Openness, public, are two words you are yours don't acknowledge. You are neither open nor public, except with your blind, stupid and assinine pomposity.
jpliberty wrote:Nope. I'll play a map which I understand.
I won't play into your system.
How about this, we choose from one or more of the 22 maps which I play, and we play 200 games, speed or casual makes no dif to me.
I WILL NOT play World because it is a scam built for scamsters to rip off others. It is a simple plot, very obvious
Bruceswar wrote:Tisha wrote:Greatwhite wrote: I will play with any rank providing they have a 100% attendance rating and decent feedback. Hell, I stand to get more points when playing with lower ranks on my team.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
providing that they don't beat you also..
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
AAFitz wrote:no surprise to all, but jpliberty refused my games
world 2.1 he says isnt a fair map...when obviously, its the most fair map... granted, on my settings...it wasnt fair to him
he prefers the little ones obviously, where only luck matters.... not surprised here
i obviously would have played on his maps too, but hey... not everyone has courage... though youd think with a name like liberty...
AAFitz wrote:oh really... join those games, and send me five of your favorite ones to match.
I dont mind a few mindless maps where skill matters little, but im not about to only play those
Ill resend the games...
send yours
good luck.
the other 5 are still there too, if youd rather make it 10.. just let me know your game numbers...should be fun
AAFitz wrote:Ill prepare my score for the upcoming increase indeed.
I do apologize... playing 5 of your maps was implied in my offer, i just didnt mention it, ive done many similar challenges...
AAFitz wrote:Youre assuming I care if I win or lose.
Fruitcake wrote:Put a team together Libby old chap, pm me with the names, I will put a team together that matches on points gained/lost and will gladly play you best of 3/5/7/9 games....standard triples, no cards, classic map, chained forts. In my opinion, for what it is worth, this shows the least 'luck' and the most strategic skill. I already have open games of this nature up on the board, but for you I am happy to go 'private'.
Fruitcake wrote:Fruitcake wrote:Put a team together Libby old chap, pm me with the names, I will put a team together that matches on points gained/lost and will gladly play you best of 3/5/7/9 games....standard triples, no cards, classic map, chained forts. In my opinion, for what it is worth, this shows the least 'luck' and the most strategic skill. I already have open games of this nature up on the board, but for you I am happy to go 'private'.
Not seeming to be a bore about this Libs old boy, but you talk the talk, I have offered you a straight chance to walk the walk, yet you seem to be avoiding the chance.
Fruitcake wrote:Fruitcake wrote:Put a team together Libby old chap, pm me with the names, I will put a team together that matches on points gained/lost and will gladly play you best of 3/5/7/9 games....standard triples, no cards, classic map, chained forts. In my opinion, for what it is worth, this shows the least 'luck' and the most strategic skill. I already have open games of this nature up on the board, but for you I am happy to go 'private'.
Not seeming to be a bore about this Libs old boy, but you talk the talk, I have offered you a straight chance to walk the walk, yet you seem to be avoiding the chance.
jpliberty wrote:When I get some time I'll pore over your fairly obtusely worded "challenge" and let you know.
jpliberty wrote:Openness, public, are two words you are yours don't acknowledge. You are neither open nor public, except with your blind, stupid and assinine pomposity.
AAFitz wrote:His challenge seems pretty clear, except perhaps for the libby. But speaking of obtuse and unclear, could you translate this little gem for me:jpliberty wrote:Openness, public, are two words you are yours don't acknowledge. You are neither open nor public, except with your blind, stupid and assinine pomposity.
Maybe its the colonels hat restricting blood flow to my brain, but I just dont get it.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users