Doubles games and their affect on rankings.

hernando cortez · Post by **hernando cortez** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:52 pm

I see many people highly ranked collect much of thier points from doubles games. They have a partner they have played with frequently and wait patiently for two unaffiliated suckers to stumble in to face thier doom. This to me seems to be an unfair advantage in the usually level playing field of risk. I propose we have a doubles and singles ranking to eliminate this bias.
discuss.

GabonX · Post by **GabonX** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:57 pm

I agree, and while I respect the people who do this to a degree they havent earned what singles players have.

P.S. You should repost this in the suggestions and bug reports forum.

zarvinny · Post by **zarvinny** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:59 pm

eff dude, you've been playing on conquerclub since forever.... You played GAME 2 @!@ ... and YOU WON!

But in answer to your question.

This topic has been brought up many times, to the point where people suggested making two score boards, one for team games and one for not. however, nothing good enough has been suggested to change things.

Plus, those two colonels waiting for two suckers get like 7 points off of them, however, they can lose like 30+ And the two that play them aren't always suckers. Some players make a livin joining games like that, them being like 500 points below the colonels, but with a decent partner there is a good chance of winning decent points off of them.

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:09 pm

If I win a game, I get anywhere from 9 point to 11 points unless I am playing against another colonel.

Every game I lose, I drop as many as 40 points, but usually 25-30.

I have to win 3 games for every 1 I lose.

For singles games, you have to win 1 game for every 4-5 you lose.

Half of the team games I play are against 2 players who know each other and the other half are against random people.

If it is so easy to do, then there would be more colonels, but keeping a consistant point total is much harder than it seems since gaining points becomes exponentially harder as you move up in rank.

hernando cortez · Post by **hernando cortez** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:23 pm

I understand the point gain on wins is smaller But the probablity of winning rises immensely. And the whole loosing more points then you gain thing happens to anyone who has built a high score. Take a look at the rankings. there is a reason why 5 of the top 6 players play a ton of doubles and with the same partner over and over. we might as well just call the top of the scoreboard the doubles rankings.

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:31 pm

hernando cortez wrote:I understand the point gain on wins is smaller But the probablity of winning rises immensely. And the whole loosing more points then you gain thing happens to anyone who has built a high score. Take a look at the rankings. there is a reason why 5 of the top 6 players play a ton of doubles and with the same partner over and over. we might as well just call the top of the scoreboard the doubles rankings.

then play doubles

You will quickly find that getting wiped off the board sucks for you just as much when you have a partner's shoulder to cry on.

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:34 pm

and the reason most play doubles is the simple reduction in point swings. Most of those players are very skilled and competant in single play as well, but balance their game list with more doubles play. I am involved in about ten singles matches with several players in the top 50 on the scoreboard.

Post by **Evil Semp** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:44 pm

And no suckers stumble into any singles games that higher ranked players are waiting in?

About half my games are doubles and I don't usually start any games, my partner and I join games and look to play people of equal rank or higher.

hernando cortez · Post by **hernando cortez** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:52 pm

"then play doubles "

first i dont want to play doubles. the game doesnt appeal to me.

'and the reason most play doubles is the simple reduction in point swings."

If by reduction in point swings you mean reducing them to one direction than i understand what you mean. I think they play doubles cause they like doubles. But you cannot deny that through doubles these players have created scores they could have never acheived playing singles. this debate is not about the skill of doubles players at playing singles, but the bias that is created in the rankings from thier strategy.

Now there is a solution to that bias and that is seperate scoreboards

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:55 pm

i think freestyle escalating chained games should have their own scoreboard too.

You tell me you aren't just waiting for players who don't know what they are getting into to stumble across such a specialized game?

KidTwist · Post by **KidTwist** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:06 pm

A Mans Part wrote:i think freestyle escalating chained games should have their own scoreboard too.

You tell me you aren't just waiting for players who don't know what they are getting into to stumble across such a specialized game?

*pops open a beer and cheers to doubles partner*

hernando cortez · Post by **hernando cortez** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:07 pm

If freestyle escalating chained games players dominated the scoreboard then you would have a point. I wouldnt call it a specialized game its the default settings. I play it because i feel it is closest to what i would play with friends in real life.
If youre having such fun looking at my game logs, look at the logs for the top six players and then come back to the thread. i believe you are just oblivious to an obvious reality and i dont know what more i can say to you.

KidTwist · Post by **KidTwist** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:09 pm

You play live freestyle? Wow, what a party huh?

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:09 pm

If I remember correctly, DMinus plays all escalating freestyle games also, so there goes your top 6 theory.

hernando cortez · Post by **hernando cortez** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:16 pm

are u even reading my posts. I said 5 of the top 6. your exception has already been noted. the more i talk to you the more its not surprising that you dont understand this anomaly of the highest ranked players playing doubles with the same partners over and over and having ridiculous scores.

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:20 pm

more than half of Scorba's games are standard. You should research more and come back with a new theory.

D.IsleRealBrown · Post by **D.IsleRealBrown** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:01 am

This is possibly the dumbest thread I've ever read.....

Why the fvck would I want to play a weak player who could easily get lucky and criple my points?

Get a fucking clue, I can't believe you're actually complaining about how other people get their points.

Here's a suggestion, try worrying about yourself.

GabonX · Post by **GabonX** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:44 am

There are many ways to get points on Conquer Club but there are only two or three ways to play Risk. I come to this site as a Risk player. The most common way is flat rate in my experience. Next is excalating and then no cards. Freestile games aren't Risk and technicaly all fortifications work the way adjacent does on this site. I've played alot of unlimited games but I'm switching to adjacent to try and keep with the true rules.

If people on this site have fun playing other ways thats fine, but it doesn't say anything about their real ability to play the game.

hernando cortez · Post by **hernando cortez** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:54 am

"Get a fucking clue, I can't believe you're actually complaining about how other people get their points.

Here's a suggestion, try worrying about yourself."

Its funny how doubles players are getting so riled up by this suggestion. Both of you seem defensive but unable to address the original point of this thread. If you believe that doubles players being at the top of the rankings is a coicidence then i think you arent very bright. I simply offered a suggestion to remove this bias. You responded with a bitchy attitude yet added nothing to this discussion.

D.IsleRealBrown · Post by **D.IsleRealBrown** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:46 am

A Mans Part wrote: You should research more and come back with a new theory.

A Mans Part · Post by **A Mans Part** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:47 am

A Mans Part wrote:You should research more and come back with a new theory.

I have already negated your two initial arguments about the top 6 players in a non-botchy manner. You have questioned my intelligence twice without once proving your own. Come back again with more points and I will respond to them.

D.IsleRealBrown · Post by **D.IsleRealBrown** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:08 am

lol, I started a post with all of my single wins and gave up.....

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:47 am

I haven't played a single team game, and I really don't care how many doubles/triples players are above me.

How many people have broken 2000 without team games? Probably a lot less than the ranking of 20 something I had when I got to that level. But dminus has also showed me its possible to get over 2600 points in singles games. If I can do that and it would still only put me in the top 5, I'd be happy any way.

I don't play my games in order to get higher on the scoreboard. I try to get higher on the scoreboard by playing my games.

By that I mean, my goal is to win each game as best I can....win as many styles as I can....play as many different strategies as I can...and have as much fun as I can.

From one singles player to another- I really don't care how the people above me got their points.

hernando cortez · Post by **hernando cortez** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:59 am

"I have already negated your two initial arguments about the top 6 players in a non-botchy manner."
You haven't negated anything. You restated that the fifth place guy played only singles and that scorba has played alot of singles. that still doesnt refute the initial argument. why is the top of the leaderboard doubles playerswho constantly play with the same teamate? because going into a match where you have an experienced team you have an advantage over a team which may never have played together before. All i am doing is suggesting dividing the rankings which supposedly many have suggested before. and the bitchy attitude was referring to D.IsleRealBrown. I believe this is pretty apparent but i am not gonna waste my time trying to convince people who are defensive about the fact they play doubles.

D.IsleRealBrown · Post by **D.IsleRealBrown** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:52 am

The funny thing is I suggested this last week, my "bitchy attitude" is in response to your bitchy attitude.

In conclusion team players don't play weaker opponents to get more points, in fact they would rather play teams with higher ranks to get more points. If there was a situation where higher ranked opponents were jumping in games against much lower ranked teams you would have an arguement.

Case closed, lock thread.