Simply... I just enjoy playing the game.

[WOTE]

Although some may have a few grips about the present point system, I really do not. Just to make that clear, I’m only making this post to hopefully generate some ideas. Simply I just enjoy playing the game. Anyhow onward…….
Some of the things to think about would be
A] Point economics
B] Why the ELO system does not work
C] Ratings, Medals and Rankings
D] Cheating? – For the Blind.
E] Achievements!
Point economics
The Present
Due to the fact that there are anywhere from 2-8 players in a game, it would seem its more advantageous to play game with 8 players than 2, because if you lose the game, you lose about the same amount of points as if there were 8 players, and if you win you gain large points. Thus you only need a 12.5% win rate to stay somewhat even, and if you opponents have a higher ranking you gain. With a 25% win rate you should always gain points, and climb up the latter. My 15% win rate has gotten me as high as a Sergeant 1st class, but I believe that is only because I tent to play games with 4 – 8 players and rarely play with 2- 3 players.
Unaccounted Achievements
The present system does not take into account if you come in second or third or fourth, that it is an achievement. I would think that to survive in a game to the second last man that it would be worth something. Unlike most games with one winner and one loser, Conquer Club has one winner and up to 7 losers. So I have to ask what is wrong with, say 3 winners and 5 losers or 4 winners and 4 losers? Should the system not take into account things like how many games you play, how many time you came in second or third? How many times you beat same player over and over? Certainly the Medal system does some of that, and the developers are more than likely looking at adding medal to the system. {yaa!!}
The Scoreboard tells us that the top 1000 players have a rank as low as a Lieutenant, yet with 23,000 players in the system the top 4000 players have a lowest rake of Sergeant 1st class and after that the ranks get lower. The midway point is for ranks is hits between 3000 and 4000 players. Not that this is bad, it just gives us an idea as to how the system doing, and very possibly, how many dead account there are in the system. Yet a healthy 10,000 – 15,000 Daily active players.

Why the ELO system does not work
The ELO System
The ELO system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess and Go, so this system just would not work CC. But even Professor Elo pointed out that the system has flaws. One of those flaws is the inflation of ratings. “The primary goal of Elo ratings is to accurately predict game results between contemporary competitors, and FIDE ratings perform this task relatively well. A secondary, more ambitious goal is to use ratings to compare players between different eras. It would be convenient if a FIDE rating of 2500 meant the same thing in 2005 that it meant in 1975. If the ratings suffer from inflation, then a modern rating of 2500 means less than a historical rating of 2500, while if the ratings suffer from deflation, the reverse will be true. Unfortunately, even among people who would like ratings from different eras to "mean the same thing", intuitions differ sharply as to whether a given rating should represent a fixed absolute skill or a fixed relative performance.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_inflation_and_deflation]
So a another question come to mind….does CC have any of the above problems?

Ratings, Medals and Rankings
Medals
Personal I like the medals, mainly because it gives players a sense of achievement unlike the ratings that is purely base on individual perception and feelings, and not true achievements. I just wish I could get some! Well the ones I would like anyhow , like the “Best Strategy Medal” , “Medal of Honour” , “Best Sacrifice Medal”, “Best Team Mate Medal”, and finely the medal of “Valour”. Well maybe some day eh…
Ratings
Don’t over rate the ratings, I basically just give almost everyone a five for Fair Play, unless I get eliminate by turn 3. A five for Attitude, unless they swear or something. For Game play I’ll rate from 2-5 mainly a 3 or 4 because I don’t pay to much attention the way others play the game. And a five if they are the winner of near a win, or one of the last four or three players.
Rankings
It’s nice to know how many games I’ve won, but it would be nicer if I knew how close I was to a win in every game. ;P

Cheating
For the blind
If you cheat your only cheating your self.


Achievements!
Achievements!
We reward our pets when they're good, and almost every time they do something we want them to do. The same true for almost any in life. We get rewarded for working, doing well in school, shopping at the same place, recruiting CC members. We all like awards weather they or points, medals, or nick knacks of some kind. And like many people do, we horde them, store them, show them off.
Conclusion
I guess its all a mater of measurement, if we have a longer measurement, then we have farther to go…….

[daydream]

while i dont know exactly what you are trying to tell us... its medals. metal is either a type of music or what or a type of chemical elements. just wante to threow that in there.
i have to say while i found the part about elo relatively interesting, none of this has not been said before...

[WOTE]

Thanks, corrected, so any ideas of your own? and yes i read some of the post.
p.s what does one expect from a cartoon....

[MeDeFe]

And I think you meant to write "reward our pets when they're good, and almost every time they do something we want them to do" in the final paragraph.

[WOTE]

And I think you meant to write "reward our pets when they're good, and almost every time they do something we want them to do" in the final paragraph.

in other words the Microsoft gamer program needs more bloody fixing than CC.

[AAFitz]

while i dont know exactly what you are trying to tell us... its medals. metal is either a type of music or what or a type of chemical elements. just wante to threow that in there.
i have to say while i found the part about elo relatively interesting, none of this has not been said before...

always proof-read when commenting on someones spellling



3 L's

[daydream]

while i dont know exactly what you are trying to tell us... its medals. metal is either a type of music or what or a type of chemical elements. just wante to threow that in there.
i have to say while i found the part about elo relatively interesting, none of this has not been said before...

always proof-read when commenting on someones spellling



3 L's

actually noticed that myself afterwards but thought it wasnt too terrible. i got a kick out of all the metal though... gives the speed-medal a whole new meaning.

[AAFitz]

damn.. you didnt take the bait

[oVo]

Participating in a good game with good players is it's own reward
and winning that just puts extra icing on the cake...
with or without metal

[Timminz]

damn.. you didnt take the bait

's

[FabledIntegral]

Coming in second place matters little. As you play CC more, you will come to find out more than 50% of hte games are escalating, or how classic risk is played. Often more than not, especially in casual games, every player dies in the same turn, in what is called a "sweep." Often more than not, the better players are taken out first to neutralize the threat, and the people that played very poorily are taken out last. Thus your rewarding of 2nd place would be very very bad for the system, because those who actually played better die first.

Secondly, your scenario with 1v1 vs 8-player ffa is also flawed, because you assume someone who plays an 8-player can win 20% of the time. Statistically, they should only win 1/8 games, each person winning once, thus there is no more to gain from 8-players than 1v1, where you should win 1/2 times.

[AAFitz]

damn.. you didnt take the bait

's

eh... apostrophes dont count

[KoE_Sirius]

Now we got all the trolls/spelling out of the way .I'll have my say about the actual subject matter .
I think he has good point that players could be rewarded for coming second ,but we already have a similar system in play its called "Terminator".
If you play well in the game you get rewarded for each kill .Maybe this could be your game of choice in future .

[WOTE]

Participating in a good game with good players is it's own reward
and winning that just puts extra icing on the cake...
with or without metal

True ! so why have medals at all then?

[WOTE]

Coming in second place matters little. As you play CC more, you will come to find out more than 50% of hte games are escalating, or how classic risk is played. Often more than not, especially in casual games, every player dies in the same turn, in what is called a "sweep." Often more than not, the better players are taken out first to neutralize the threat, and the people that played very poorly are taken out last. Thus your rewarding of 2nd place would be very very bad for the system, because those who actually played better die first.

It is my view that games using the escalating cards, simple just add more chance and luck to the game than skill. Thus coming is 1st would not matter at all. if we look at the top ten players on the score board Warsteiner has the most wins but placed 4th, torcav2 has the best percentage yet is place 10th, and Thai Robert has the least amount of games played even amongst most players at cc yet is ranked 8th. The point is take more measurements to get a more accurate score. If your right and the worst of players are eliminated last, then what does that say about the one who came in 1st? [That he was the luckiest or the worst player? ]
1 poo-maker 4937 1187 612 (52%) Conqueror 4.9 Ireland
2 SkyT 4758 1765 1423 (81%) Field Marshal 4.7 United States
3 Scott-Land 4555 3198 1127 (35%) Field Marshal 4.7 United States
4 Warsteiner 4423 2388 1426 (60%) General 4.2 Netherlands
5 RashidJelzin 4387 1714 693 (40%) General 4.6 Germany
6 rabbiton 4292 1190 762 (64%) General 4.4 United States
7 King_Herpes 3768 1042 585 (56%) General 4.7 United States
8 Thai Robert 3714 166 99 (60%) Brigadier 4.8 Thailand
9 fantasianasian 3546 492 195 (40%) General 4.7 United States
10 torcav2 3544 1154 1008 (87%) General 4.6 Colombia

Compare that to other game ranking systems like chess, and Go. do you not see an unbalance here? or do you think this system is perfect?

Secondly, your scenario with 1v1 vs 8-player ffa is also flawed, because you assume someone who plays an 8-player can win 20% of the time. Statistically, they should only win 1/8 games, each person winning once, thus there is no more to gain from 8-players than 1v1, where you should win 1/2 times.

ah your right the percentage should be 12.5% i will correct that. and i do assume that only because, 1. i assume most players that like to play the game have a certain basic skill level, and 2. the game is partly based on luck and chance, not skill. Therefore most player should have a 12.5% win rate irregardless of there Rank or ratings or points.


Page 45 of the score board.
11240 fgilbert 1028 9 2 (22%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.6 United States United States
11241 brianc723 1028 7 4 (57%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class n/a United States United States
11242 rob801 1028 6 1 (17%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.5 United Kingdom United Kingdom
11243 overlordcici 1028 4 1 (25%) New Recruit New Recruit 5.0 United States United States
11244 jtbmax 1028 4 1 (25%) New Recruit New Recruit 5.0 United States United States
11245 GrenadeJumpers 1028 4 1 (25%) New Recruit New Recruit n/a United States United States
11246 masterjoe 1028 3 2 (67%) New Recruit New Recruit n/a Canada Canada
11247 ddbena 1027 380 129 (34%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.7 United States United States
11248 Pitroig 1027 357 73 (20%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.6 Spain Spain
11249 Cacao 1027 340 64 (19%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.6 Italy Italy
11250 AfghanRebel 1027 212 73 (34%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.9 Netherlands Netherlands

[FabledIntegral]

Coming in second place matters little. As you play CC more, you will come to find out more than 50% of hte games are escalating, or how classic risk is played. Often more than not, especially in casual games, every player dies in the same turn, in what is called a "sweep." Often more than not, the better players are taken out first to neutralize the threat, and the people that played very poorily are taken out last. Thus your rewarding of 2nd place would be very very bad for the system, because those who actually played better die first.

It is my view that games using the escalating cards, simple just add more chance and luck to the game than skill. Thus coming is 1st would not matter at all. if we look at the top ten players on the score board Warsteiner has the most wins but placed 4th, torcav2 has the best percentage yet is place 10th, and Thai Robert has the least amount of games played even amongst most players at cc yet is ranked 8th. The point is take more meserments to get a more accurate score. If your right and the wrost of players are eliminated last, then what does that say about the one who came in 1st? [That he was the luckiest or the worst player? ]
1 poo-maker 4937 1187 612 (52%) Conqueror 4.9 Ireland
2 SkyT 4758 1765 1423 (81%) Field Marshal 4.7 United States
3 Scott-Land 4555 3198 1127 (35%) Field Marshal 4.7 United States
4 Warsteiner 4423 2388 1426 (60%) General 4.2 Netherlands
5 RashidJelzin 4387 1714 693 (40%) General 4.6 Germany
6 rabbiton 4292 1190 762 (64%) General 4.4 United States
7 King_Herpes 3768 1042 585 (56%) General 4.7 United States
8 Thai Robert 3714 166 99 (60%) Brigadier 4.8 Thailand
9 fantasianasian 3546 492 195 (40%) General 4.7 United States
10 torcav2 3544 1154 1008 (87%) General 4.6 Colombia

Compare that to other game ranking systems like chess, and Go. do you not see an unbalance here? or do you think this system is perfect?

Escalating is how classic RISK is played on teh board. Escalating requires the least luck out of the three available gametypes. It requires the most strategy on where to block and move on the board. No cards depend highly upon drop. Flat rate is the biggest joke out of the three.

You also have a very poor reasoning with "does it mean the first player is the worst ranked player?" Of course not, he's the one that won. In a game, you always will neutralize the biggest threat, not the small fry first, unless killing the small fry provides some sort of advantage. However, if you are at a stage where you will be the clear victor... then obviously you go for the players that can still kill you to ensure they don't manage to get a kill on a weaker player thus getting back into the game. So instead you take out the stronger player first, whereas the weaker player has no chance of doing anything because you can plan out the kill properly. Therefore the stronger player is eliminated first, simply because he is stronger. Especially in speed games, where a weaker player may have ended his turn first, thus the active player will kill the other active player to make sure the board is idle except for his own moves (in freestyle) so that he has a clean sweep.

Secondly, your scenario with 1v1 vs 8-player ffa is also flawed, because you assume someone who plays an 8-player can win 20% of the time. Statistically, they should only win 1/8 games, each person winning once, thus there is no more to gain from 8-players than 1v1, where you should win 1/2 times.

ah your right the percentage should be 12.5% i will correct that. and i do assume that only because, 1. i assume most players that like to play the game have a certain basic skill level, and 2. the game is partly basic on luck and chance, not skill. Therefore most player should have a 12.5% win rate irregardless of there Rank or ratings or points.


Page 45 of the score board.
11240 fgilbert 1028 9 2 (22%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.6 United States United States
11241 brianc723 1028 7 4 (57%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class n/a United States United States
11242 rob801 1028 6 1 (17%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.5 United Kingdom United Kingdom
11243 overlordcici 1028 4 1 (25%) New Recruit New Recruit 5.0 United States United States
11244 jtbmax 1028 4 1 (25%) New Recruit New Recruit 5.0 United States United States
11245 GrenadeJumpers 1028 4 1 (25%) New Recruit New Recruit n/a United States United States
11246 masterjoe 1028 3 2 (67%) New Recruit New Recruit n/a Canada Canada
11247 ddbena 1027 380 129 (34%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.7 United States United States
11248 Pitroig 1027 357 73 (20%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.6 Spain Spain
11249 Cacao 1027 340 64 (19%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.6 Italy Italy
11250 AfghanRebel 1027 212 73 (34%) Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 4.9 Netherlands Netherlands[/quote]

You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.

Tell me this - how often do you try to conquer a continent in a large game? All the time? What bonus do you go for, etc. Curious to see your view on the game.

[hulmey]

while i dont know exactly what you are trying to tell us... its medals. metal is either a type of music or what or a type of chemical elements. just wante to threow that in there.
i have to say while i found the part about elo relatively interesting, none of this has not been said before...

always proof-read when commenting on someones spellling



3 L's

I DID!

[WOTE]

You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.

heavily misguided!!! ...... ......... If Risk is = carpentry . Then chess is = all the other trades put together.

[FabledIntegral]

You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.

heavily misguided!!! ...... ......... If Risk is = carpentry . Then chess is = all the other trades put together.

I bet if we played 8, 8-player games, I would come out winning at least 3. I'd be surprised if you won more than 1. Maybe arrogance though - you could simply be a new person to the site that's a veteran player. You never answered me under what conditions you try to take continents though!

[WOTE]

You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.

heavily misguided!!! ...... ......... If Risk is = carpentry . Then chess is = all the other trades put together.

I bet if we played 8, 8-player games, I would come out winning at least 3. I'd be surprised if you won more than 1. Maybe arrogance though - you could simply be a new person to the site that's a veteran player. You never answered me under what conditions you try to take continents though!

Hummm lets see... how about a 1vs 1 best of seven, classical map, no cards, adjacent movement, u 1st me 2nd. thus you can see my play in action. I leaned to play Risk at the age 10. Chess from the Age of 7, I also play Diplomacy, D-Day, AOE, Hockey, Golf, poker once in a while, crib, bridge, crazy 8's, and a host of other games.
I take continents any way that I can, invade, one at a time, sweep, whatever happens to be the best move at the time. It also dependents on the conditions of the game. the cards,fort movement, number of players, and if I am a target or not. and of course most of all how hard I pray to the dice gods!

[Angus Khan]

Coming in second place matters little. As you play CC more, you will come to find out more than 50% of hte games are escalating, or how classic risk is played. Often more than not, especially in casual games, every player dies in the same turn, in what is called a "sweep." Often more than not, the better players are taken out first to neutralize the threat, and the people that played very poorily are taken out last. Thus your rewarding of 2nd place would be very very bad for the system, because those who actually played better die first.

As someone who comes in second place a LOT, I completely disagree with FabledIntegral on this point. If you watch "the masters" play, you'll see that the strongest opponent gets left for LAST specifically BECAUSE he's the strongest. Especially in escalating, the "sweep" begins by eliminating the weak, easy kills to get their cards and leveraging them to get to the stronger players (who have better positions and more armies).

I was moving nicely up the ranks, consistently winning 1/3 of my games, but have recently had the worst losing streak of my CC life. No matter what I do, what I try, how I play or what strategy I use, I lose. I guess God is just telling me to quit screwing around on CC and get on with my life or something. Too bad, I really had fun, but for instance in this game:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2924341

I was in an obvious sweep, and only had to eliminate yellow to take his cards and win out. Unfortunately 18v4 lost 15 armies versus NONE, which is while statistically possible, incredibly improbable. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon occurrence with me, in fact it has happened so much lately that I've lost over 30 games IN A ROW, regardless of the situation. CaptainMoo invited me into about a dozen games against quality opponents and most of them (majors and captains mostly, which is what I used to be) saw the same thing I did, my luck just sucks lately and luck is more valuable than strategy ultimately. Nine times out of ten, 2nd place belongs to the second strongest player, or as my kids used to say, first place loser.

[Angus Khan]

Another current example, this game:
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2883183

Just can't win for losing. Now if you think it was an advantage to have my newb partner eliminated in the 5th round and to somehow make it to the end and within 3 rolls of winning the game, well you just don't get it. Yup second place means nuttin honey.

[FabledIntegral]

You are heavily misguided if you feel that this game has little skill going on.

heavily misguided!!! ...... ......... If Risk is = carpentry . Then chess is = all the other trades put together.

I bet if we played 8, 8-player games, I would come out winning at least 3. I'd be surprised if you won more than 1. Maybe arrogance though - you could simply be a new person to the site that's a veteran player. You never answered me under what conditions you try to take continents though!

Hummm lets see... how about a 1vs 1 best of seven, classical map, no cards, adjacent movement, u 1st me 2nd. thus you can see my play in action. I leaned to play Risk at the age 10. Chess from the Age of 7, I also play Diplomacy, D-Day, AOE, Hockey, Golf, poker once in a while, crib, bridge, crazy 8's, and a host of other games.
I take continents any way that I can, invade, one at a time, sweep, whatever happens to be the best move at the time. It also dependents on the conditions of the game. the cards,fort movement, number of players, and if I am a target or not. and of course most of all how hard I pray to the dice gods!

1v1 determines nothing - it is decided majorly by dice, who goes first, etc. You can not choose who goes first.

And oh - I learned to play chess at 5, you're not impressing me. Especially when it's completely irrelevant of your "life accomplishments." Keep it pertinent. I already made it clear I was referring to 8-player escalating games; classic Risk IS played with cards btw.

If you would like to participate in some 6 or 8 player escalating games, we can see how it goes. Although I bet you would merely drop for Australia or South America and everyone would moan on why you were allowed to join.