Why do all the top ranked players play doubles etc?

[Themachine]

Each time i check out the games of the top ranked players its always 2- 4 high ranks in a team vs. some avarage rank players.

The higher ranks only seem to play in team games, and always seem to play together (ive seen 3 people in like 6 games together).

Infact im hard pushed to find anyone in the top 20 in singles games that aren't private.

Im pretty new myself so I dont fully understand why this is.
it's my understanding though, that they'd get very few points for defeating players lower ranked than themselves, and if they lost they'd lose alot.


I know doubles basically legalise secret diplomacy...



So, maybe someone can fill me in.

[comic boy]

Im at a loss to see what your problem is, set up some private games ( singles/team games whatever ) and simply invite whoever you wish. There are plenty of high ranked players who enjoy singles but they play private games for the most part both because of the scoring system and to avoid bad players. To consistently do well at doubles/triples it pays to partner the same people , many teams have worked their way through the ranks together, why would you want to join a team consisting of 3 strangers who may well turn out to be utterly hopeless together .

[Bruceswar]

OK I will take a stab. A few reasons...

1. Low ranks generally do not understand the game as well, so someone will almost always suicide you for Oceania or South America in a public game. High ranks do not like that.

2. High ranks win few points, and risk many. They do not enjoy games where they have to plead with players not to suicide them.

3. For a top 20 player to make any points playing public singles games, they would have to win nearly like 17 of 20 to break even. With all the combined factors that just does not happen.

4. Public games generally are not much of a challenge for the higher ranks anymore. Beating up on cooks, and cadets is not fun for most.

5. They want teammates that they can count on. Not someone who is going to make tons of mistakes, and miss turns.

Just a few reasons why most stay away from public games..

BTW Team games are not secret alliances, you can choose who you play with..

[OliverFA]

Excuse me, but I don't understand how can you say at the same time that high rank players cannot win enough public games to break even and then state that is not fun playing those games because it's not a challenge.

Don't those two statements contradict themselves?

[The Neon Peon]

Excuse me, but I don't understand how can you say at the same time that high rank players cannot win enough public games to break even and then state that is not fun playing those games because it's not a challenge.

Don't those two statements contradict themselves?

Nope, luck will lose you more than 3 out of 20 games

[comic boy]

Excuse me, but I don't understand how can you say at the same time that high rank players cannot win enough public games to break even and then state that is not fun playing those games because it's not a challenge.

Don't those two statements contradict themselves?

Only if you interpret the above overall required win rate as 'challenging ' as opposed to near impossible. Singularly the games are not challenging because most will be won by default as a result of one or other of the opposition playing like a haddock.

[PLAYER57832]

OK I will take a stab. A few reasons...

1. Low ranks generally do not understand the game as well, so someone will almost always suicide you for Oceania or South America in a public game. High ranks do not like that.

2. High ranks win few points, and risk many. They do not enjoy games where they have to plead with players not to suicide them.

3. For a top 20 player to make any points playing public singles games, they would have to win nearly like 17 of 20 to break even. With all the combined factors that just does not happen.

4. Public games generally are not much of a challenge for the higher ranks anymore. Beating up on cooks, and cadets is not fun for most.

5. They want teammates that they can count on. Not someone who is going to make tons of mistakes, and miss turns.

Just a few reasons why most stay away from public games..

BTW Team games are not secret alliances, you can choose who you play with..

This is, to a point reasonable.

The problem is that it means to get up to the HIGHEST ranks you pretty much have not not just be a good player yourself, but you have to have friends who are good players AND you have to know other good players who are willing to play you.

There are a LOT of reasons for someone not to meet those criteria other than being a poor player (or just a jerk whom no one wants to play).

Personally, I could care less. Right now, while I have played a few games against quite high ranked players, I tend to lose. I am happy to play, but not angry if they seek a better challenge. BUT, I can see where other more competetive minded players would get upset by this system.

Bottom line -- once you reach a certain rank, you should have to take certain challenges -- perhaps only those from other closely ranked individuals or some other limitation, but this idea that "gee I got up high and now I am not going to play the "peons" " is, well, not exactly an open and free competetive attitude.

I mean, The number one boxers don't have to play every mickie mouse player who thinks they can be "king", but if you want to keep your title, you do have to play certain qualified opponents. CC should have something along those lines.

[hiddendragon]

My best friend and I joined this site at the same time and my baby brother joined soon after...My chum lives on the other side of the state and with both of us having families it is hard to find time to hang out anymore...My brother lives on the other side of the country and his job often takes him to other countries so I see him maybe twice a year...Teaming up with them allows us to do things together we wouldn't otherwise have the opprotunities to do...Having played the original risk online and being a top 50 player then and playing CC allows me to make the assumption that team games are where the skill is...I'll team with anyone from cook to conquerer so long as they don't skip turns and play many standard match-ups as well...Now that I'm involved with a clan we often hunt high-ranked teams, as they do us, and we have interclan battles amongst ourselves for shits and grins as well...I know my clan-mates won't deadbeat or form secret alliances so most of my games are used up there...when we do make public games we don't ask that low or high ranks only join against us we do this for the sportsmanship we enjoy amongst ourselves...For those who trash the high-ranked players for whatever game style they prefer, it's unfortunate you have not found or choose not to find a group of players you enjoy being around...I enjoy playing risk and appreciate all that CC has contributed to my entertainment and I'll continue to play the games I enjoy...

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

high ranks team together so they can make moves with each others accounts giving them an extra advantage.

[FabledIntegral]

OK I will take a stab. A few reasons...

1. Low ranks generally do not understand the game as well, so someone will almost always suicide you for Oceania or South America in a public game. High ranks do not like that.

2. High ranks win few points, and risk many. They do not enjoy games where they have to plead with players not to suicide them.

3. For a top 20 player to make any points playing public singles games, they would have to win nearly like 17 of 20 to break even. With all the combined factors that just does not happen.

4. Public games generally are not much of a challenge for the higher ranks anymore. Beating up on cooks, and cadets is not fun for most.

5. They want teammates that they can count on. Not someone who is going to make tons of mistakes, and miss turns.

Just a few reasons why most stay away from public games..

BTW Team games are not secret alliances, you can choose who you play with..

This is, to a point reasonable.

The problem is that it means to get up to the HIGHEST ranks you pretty much have not not just be a good player yourself, but you have to have friends who are good players AND you have to know other good players who are willing to play you.

There are a LOT of reasons for someone not to meet those criteria other than being a poor player (or just a jerk whom no one wants to play).

Personally, I could care less. Right now, while I have played a few games against quite high ranked players, I tend to lose. I am happy to play, but not angry if they seek a better challenge. BUT, I can see where other more competetive minded players would get upset by this system.

Bottom line -- once you reach a certain rank, you should have to take certain challenges -- perhaps only those from other closely ranked individuals or some other limitation, but this idea that "gee I got up high and now I am not going to play the "peons" " is, well, not exactly an open and free competetive attitude.

I mean, The number one boxers don't have to play every mickie mouse player who thinks they can be "king", but if you want to keep your title, you do have to play certain qualified opponents. CC should have something along those lines.

At not rank should you be "obligated" to take certain challenges - that's just a joke. What if the challenger plays escalating freestyle 8-player singles games and you've been playing quads sequential standard games? So now who do they accept challenges from? What maps? Does the high rank get to pick the conditions? If yes, can he just pick waterloo if he knows the map?

The entire concept of being forced to play simply because you've accumulated a certain amount of points, whichever amount it may be, is stupid. Major is generally considered the skill level where people stop making grave errors regularly. Does that mean all majors should have to take upon challenges? But what to those majors who don't consider themselves high enough to have to even take upon challenges - whereas some others think it's Brigadier? I mean, Major's don't even have half the score of some people on teh scoreboard...

[KoE_Sirius]

I know doubles basically legalise secret diplomacy...



So, maybe someone can fill me in.

It does nothing of the sort .It divides the points between partners .No secret diplomacy is involved by the nature of the title .Its a team game .Teams talk to each other in most sports .pssst its not a secret .We all know they are speaking to each other .
BTW ..Can you define high ranked .

[PLAYER57832]

OK I will take a stab. A few reasons...

1. Low ranks generally do not understand the game as well, so someone will almost always suicide you for Oceania or South America in a public game. High ranks do not like that.

2. High ranks win few points, and risk many. They do not enjoy games where they have to plead with players not to suicide them.

3. For a top 20 player to make any points playing public singles games, they would have to win nearly like 17 of 20 to break even. With all the combined factors that just does not happen.

4. Public games generally are not much of a challenge for the higher ranks anymore. Beating up on cooks, and cadets is not fun for most.

5. They want teammates that they can count on. Not someone who is going to make tons of mistakes, and miss turns.

Just a few reasons why most stay away from public games..

BTW Team games are not secret alliances, you can choose who you play with..

This is, to a point reasonable.

The problem is that it means to get up to the HIGHEST ranks you pretty much have not not just be a good player yourself, but you have to have friends who are good players AND you have to know other good players who are willing to play you.

There are a LOT of reasons for someone not to meet those criteria other than being a poor player (or just a jerk whom no one wants to play).

Personally, I could care less. Right now, while I have played a few games against quite high ranked players, I tend to lose. I am happy to play, but not angry if they seek a better challenge. BUT, I can see where other more competetive minded players would get upset by this system.

Bottom line -- once you reach a certain rank, you should have to take certain challenges -- perhaps only those from other closely ranked individuals or some other limitation, but this idea that "gee I got up high and now I am not going to play the "peons" " is, well, not exactly an open and free competetive attitude.

I mean, The number one boxers don't have to play every mickie mouse player who thinks they can be "king", but if you want to keep your title, you do have to play certain qualified opponents. CC should have something along those lines.

At not rank should you be "obligated" to take certain challenges - that's just a joke. What if the challenger plays escalating freestyle 8-player singles games and you've been playing quads sequential standard games? So now who do they accept challenges from? What maps? Does the high rank get to pick the conditions? If yes, can he just pick waterloo if he knows the map?

The entire concept of being forced to play simply because you've accumulated a certain amount of points, whichever amount it may be, is stupid. Major is generally considered the skill level where people stop making grave errors regularly. Does that mean all majors should have to take upon challenges? But what to those majors who don't consider themselves high enough to have to even take upon challenges - whereas some others think it's Brigadier? I mean, Major's don't even have half the score of some people on teh scoreboard...

Well, first off this idea has been rejected many times ... so I am just talking. It won't happen. Rest assured.

IF it did, there would absolutely have to be limitations. It would only apply to the kinds of maps a person plays most and so forth. Something like "home court advantage" you can challenge me, but I, not you, get to decide the map and settings. (with the possible exception of speed.. since not everyone has time for that). Also, you would only have to take so many challenges ... maybe there would have to be a run-off if there were more than one challenger before you would have to take them on.

AND, as I said before, I am not suggesting a cook be allowed to challenge conquerer. But a brigand, maybe (and a major probably ought to be in the running for challenging a brigand).... one match a month or every 6 months .. something like that (though I don't think anyone keeps conquerer that long..)

[FabledIntegral]

The conquerors play Brigs all the time if I'm not mistaken?

And there's a massive difference between speed freestyle and casual freestyle.

[dividedbyzero]

I mean, The number one boxers don't have to play every mickie mouse player who thinks they can be "king", but if you want to keep your title, you do have to play certain qualified opponents. CC should have something along those lines.

And as soon as there are multi-million dollar purses for CC games, I think people will buy in.

[comic boy]

So here we have somebody on 1300 points speculating on the motivations of those with 2,3 or even 4 times that figure. Somebody who has in the past said that her priority is not points but playing the gametypes/opponents she desires, yet feels it reasonable to advise others that they ought not to have that same right but should be obliged to play lower ranks
on occasion !!! How about this idea, you play the games that you enjoy and leave the rest of us play the games we enjoy, novel I know but I think workable

[PLAYER57832]

The conquerors play Brigs all the time if I'm not mistaken?

And there's a massive difference between speed freestyle and casual freestyle.

If a person played primarily speed, then speed would be the option.

I would say these types of complications are one reason why such a challenge system is unlikely.

Myself, not playing high rankers isn't an issue. I hold my own on a couple of maps, but else ... the term "cannon fodder" seems to apply . I would like a system making it easier for people who don't have set teams to play without knowing they are facing a set of brigands and majors who have played a couple thousand games together. But that is an entirely different matter.

[dividedbyzero]

So here we have somebody on 1300 points speculating on the motivations of those with 2,3 or even 4 times that figure. Somebody who has in the past said that her priority is not points but playing the gametypes/opponents she desires, yet feels it reasonable to advise others that they ought not to have that same right but should be obliged to play lower ranks
on occasion !!! How about this idea, you play the games that you enjoy and leave the rest of us play the games we enjoy, novel I know but I think workable

There should really be a sub-forum for these, I think. Every month or so, it's either high ranks are noob farmers or high ranks only play other high ranks.

*shrug*

[premio53]

3. For a top 20 player to make any points playing public singles games, they would have to win nearly like 17 of 20 to break even. With all the combined factors that just does not happen.

I don't know what formula was used for this statement but could someone break down the percentages for 3 through 8 opponents? What is the highest someone has reached by playing strictly public games?

[PLAYER57832]

3. For a top 20 player to make any points playing public singles games, they would have to win nearly like 17 of 20 to break even. With all the combined factors that just does not happen.

I don't know what formula was used for this statement but could someone break down the percentages for 3 through 8 opponents? What is the highest someone has reached by playing strictly public games?

What I suggested was not a straight public game by any means. I simply said that by the time someone reaches a certain rank, this argument does not apply. Yes, if a brigand starts a 1 v 1 game any cook can join and, through pure, dumb luck win ... causing the brigand much harm and the cook a lot of points for no real skill. (note, I used to think otherwise, but have change my view on this). I even think the "defending champion" should be able to set the game conditions. AND I definitely think there should be a limit to the number of challenges, though "one challenge"
should perhaps involve more than one game so that luck is minimized. I mean, yes, you should be able to play who you like, for the most part. BUT if you are going to brag about being on top, about being the best ... then you should be obliged to occasionally (and ONLY occasionally prove it)

So here we have somebody on 1300 points speculating on the motivations of those with 2,3 or even 4 times that figure. Somebody who has in the past said that her priority is not points but playing the gametypes/opponents she desires, yet feels it reasonable to advise others that they ought not to have that same right but should be obliged to play lower ranks
on occasion !!! How about this idea, you play the games that you enjoy and leave the rest of us play the games we enjoy, novel I know but I think workable

Rank is not that important to me, true, fairness is. When there is unfairness anywhere, it affects us all. Bragging about being on top and then refusing to play LEGITIMATE competetors ... smacks of unfairness. You don't have to be a top player to see that.

I said right up front that it is perfectly reasonable for you to want to play "like" players. In fact, I have the opposite problem, perhaps. I would like to play a few team games without facing 3 majors who have all played together for 200 games. To be outskilled so much just does not make a good learning environment.

Regardless, this just is not going to happen, so, I can have my opinion, you can disagree ... and nothing will change. No biggie.

By-the-way, I HAVE changed my mind on this a lot because I keep reading what people are saying. Initially, I thought any limitation on playing was unfair because the system is "self-correcting", that is, if you play lower ranked players you will win the majority of the time and that if a lower ranked player wins, they deserve more points, that it balances in the end. I still think that is roughly true in the LONG haul, for most players, but perhaps not once you get to be a brigand or so. Also, this is more true in 1 v 1 and escalating than in other game types.

___________________
P.S. I think the REAL solution is to have multiple conquerer-like awards, so that you can specialize in your game type and get your own award. Having one award for all game types would plain not work ... it would just be too many. But, perhaps a freestyle conquerer, a team conquerer, a speed conquerer and a sequential singles conquerer... in addition to the "regular" overall conquerer. That way only those who play that game type would be competing for that particular title. BUT, you would still have the regular system for those who like it the way it is now.

I like the medals, because I know if I play enough, I will eventually get them. (and I believe encouraging more play is a goal of CC). BUT, I understand it is not the same as a championship crown, even if some might call a "specialty" crown a kind of "second place". (I am not sure that is true.. I think it is just rewarding a different skill set) Why not have all. (note -- there is a similar suggestion in the Medals thread for badges or shields)

[comic boy]

3. For a top 20 player to make any points playing public singles games, they would have to win nearly like 17 of 20 to break even. With all the combined factors that just does not happen.

I don't know what formula was used for this statement but could someone break down the percentages for 3 through 8 opponents? What is the highest someone has reached by playing strictly public games?

What I suggested was not a straight public game by any means. I simply said that by the time someone reaches a certain rank, this argument does not apply. Yes, if a brigand starts a 1 v 1 game any cook can join and, through pure, dumb luck win ... causing the brigand much harm and the cook a lot of points for no real skill. (note, I used to think otherwise, but have change my view on this). I even think the "defending champion" should be able to set the game conditions. AND I definitely think there should be a limit to the number of challenges, though "one challenge"
should perhaps involve more than one game so that luck is minimized. I mean, yes, you should be able to play who you like, for the most part. BUT if you are going to brag about being on top, about being the best ... then you should be obliged to occasionally (and ONLY occasionally prove it)

So here we have somebody on 1300 points speculating on the motivations of those with 2,3 or even 4 times that figure. Somebody who has in the past said that her priority is not points but playing the gametypes/opponents she desires, yet feels it reasonable to advise others that they ought not to have that same right but should be obliged to play lower ranks
on occasion !!! How about this idea, you play the games that you enjoy and leave the rest of us play the games we enjoy, novel I know but I think workable

Rank is not that important to me, true, fairness is. When there is unfairness anywhere, it affects us all. Bragging about being on top and then refusing to play LEGITIMATE competetors ... smacks of unfairness. You don't have to be a top player to see that.

I said right up front that it is perfectly reasonable for you to want to play "like" players. In fact, I have the opposite problem, perhaps. I would like to play a few team games without facing 3 majors who have all played together for 200 games. To be outskilled so much just does not make a good learning environment.

Regardless, this just is not going to happen, so, I can have my opinion, you can disagree ... and nothing will change. No biggie.

By-the-way, I HAVE changed my mind on this a lot because I keep reading what people are saying. Initially, I thought any limitation on playing was unfair because the system is "self-correcting", that is, if you play lower ranked players you will win the majority of the time and that if a lower ranked player wins, they deserve more points, that it balances in the end. I still think that is roughly true in the LONG haul, for most players, but perhaps not once you get to be a brigand or so.


P.S. I think the REAL solution is to have multiple conquerer-like awards, so that you can specialize in your game type and get your own award. Having one award for all game types would plain not work ... it would just be too many. But, perhaps a freestyle conquerer, a team conquerer, a speed conquerer and a sequential singles conquerer... in addition to the "regular" overall conquerer. That way only those who play that game type would be competing for that particular title. BUT, you would still have the regular system for those who like it the way it is now.

The problem with your reasoning is that the very best players dont in fact brag because they dont need to, their peers know exactly who they are and acknowledge them accordingly. The flip side is somebody like Maxatstuy who has a ton of points but no recognition whatsoever because he has achieved nothing except exploit a loophole in order to beat up noobs. My other concern is your concept of legitimate challenger, when I was Conqueror I had 20 people a day telling me that they deserved the right to play me, should I have been forced to play them all ?
My criteria for choosing opposition is very simple and has never changed, if I consider you will give me a good match and not come up with any daft gameplay then I will invite you providing your score is within my accepted range. I make exceptions for good players who have had a run of bad luck and ignore certain high rollers whose manner or gamestyle I find distasteful - my $25 , my games , my decision.
There are others who appear to put the acquisition or retention of points beyond all else, it wouldnt suit me to operate this way but if it works for them then fine, there are numerous ways to get enjoyment from this site and providing there is no cheating involved then who has the right to insist that anybody has to do things a certain way !

[PLAYER57832]

The problem with your reasoning is that the very best players dont in fact brag because they dont need to, their peers know exactly who they are and acknowledge them accordingly. The flip side is somebody like Maxatstuy who has a ton of points but no recognition whatsoever because he has achieved nothing except exploit a loophole in order to beat up noobs. My other concern is your concept of legitimate challenger, when I was Conqueror I had 20 people a day telling me that they deserved the right to play me, should I have been forced to play them all ?

NO, you should definitely not. I threw out a few criteria that came to the top of my head. If this WERE implemented, the criteria would absolutely have to be set by you at the top. AND, definitely a limit to the number of times one person could challenge or even the number of challenges you would have to face would be necessary. (again, just my thought was one challenge a month, or 6 months for the longer game types AND that some sort of runoff be required if there were too many challengers).

My criteria for choosing opposition is very simple and has never changed, if I consider you will give me a good match and not come up with any daft gameplay then I will invite you providing your score is within my accepted range. I make exceptions for good players who have had a run of bad luck and ignore certain high rollers whose manner or gamestyle I find distasteful - my $25 , my games , my decision.
There are others who appear to put the acquisition or retention of points beyond all else, it wouldnt suit me to operate this way but if it works for them then fine, there are numerous ways to get enjoyment from this site and providing there is no cheating involved then who has the right to insist that anybody has to do things a certain way !

Sounds like you are a reasonable player.

As for the insisting that everyone plays a certain way ... there are always limits, they just have to be reasonable ( I mean even saying no multis is a limit). If there were more of a formal challenge system for top players, it would be much harder to accuse folks of cheating their way to the top. Also, I think it would actually reduce the number of requests you get. (some still would, of course, but... you can't please everyone).

Personally, I don't think the biggest issue is whether folks will take on singles challenges or not. I think the biggest issue, for CC as a whole, is the team system. It works fine now for people who have a set of friends in CC, but not so well for those of us who don't, especially if we are admittedly not at the top, but still would like to learn to play teams. I suggested random teams as an option once, but it was rejected. Any suggestion of placing limits on joining to team games was similarly rejected. So, it does not look like anything will be changing.

This is another reason why I think multiple awards is the REAL answer. Folks could still fight over whether one type has an advantage to be conquerer, but at least they could be champion of their own type.

And who knows? Right now, I am definitely not in the running ... or even close, but maybe some day ... Unlikely, yes, but perhaps ....