rishaed wrote:Kiron wrote:rishaed wrote:I don't really think that they can make an argument convincing enough for me. The OP is extremely detailed, and the fact of the matter is that the Conquerer medal is tainted by this kind of play. It's supposed to show who the best player is, not who can farm the most people without being caught. Its blatantly, done in a way that disgraces the name of risk. It not only removes the strategy from the game for the most part, its things like this that discourage others to come to the site.
Why would I come to a site where I hear that the Conquerer is someone who farms/ranches others? As said from Spiderman, "With Great Power comes great responsibility" in the sense that as the conquerer you are representing everyone else on CC.
Those are not detailed enough. They are all circumstantial evidence, which is not enough. Can Chariot make an argument, yes u can make any argument with circumstantial evidence, but Chariot doesn't know the map very well and some of those games he listed i was actively trying to prevent Xiangwang from winning, and how is it ranching, i open a game, people are free to join, i don't actively go invite beginners to come join. I have won plenty of games without Xiangwang and he without me on the same map regardless. We just found it more of a challenge with better players. Most high ranks don't play freestyle and flatrate.
furthermore Chariot most of the examples were X/K/X or opposite, it was called courtsey since attempting to break after holding objectives is pointless. Even in game Game 7370815 as you quote - "xiangwang holds the Objective. This is despite Kiron playing the last turn and having a 25 deploy, knowing X had the objective, and being quite capable of hitting Antioch and/or Jerusalem. Instead Kiron just went harmlessly to Malta and let X win." my army was going on malta to krak to attempt to break antioch...how else am i to reach it????
Chariot most of ur examples are just circumstantial and lets think rationally, on a map with difficult settings, most people are NOT used to, does it NOT make sense that the top two ranking players with the most experience have a greater chance of winning? Our odds are not 1/8 of winning, even playing alone our odds are around 40%, so basic logic will be probability of either X or K winning is the PK+PX or 80%. Of course when u add in more experienced players, it goes down accordingly, nothing fishy, just basic logic.
Ok, Im not detailed enough apparently. I went through Game Finder to find your
FINISHED Games on Third Crusade. There are 50. When CoF can pull 21 Examples out of the Hat on Third Crusade that's between 40-50% of your games

Most of these games have people who are much higher rank than I am and as such much more skilled than I am.
Out of those 50, 43 of those games are played with Xiangwang (third Crusade only here). Now Take 21/43 Examples thats right around 50% percent. Now how many of us with high ranking players get to hold an objective 21x out of 43x by ourselves. Answer on the other hand is Go for GRENADA or begin your turn between 5/7 am (when you know he won't be up

) I mean Purple/Silver/ any of the other players near the objective could have taken it from him in one move before he could even start his turn.
fp'd
@xiang and they say to let dead dogs lie, but I don't think this is dead or something that just needs to be brushed over.
I don't even know how to comment on this one...well since you're a private...I assume there are lots of people higher ranks than you...and I assume based on your logic much more skilled than you. Okay...using your same logic, I am a brigadier (well my symbol anyways)...therefore I am more skilled than most of my opponents, so it would follow that I win more because I am higher ranked (not sure if there is an actual correlation considering rankings are not the best indicator based on game preferences), but how about I am more EXPERIENCED with the setting and map, therefore I win more games?
And look at the games I played WITHOUT Kiron, my win rate is still around 50%...playing with kiron doesn't mean anything...it just means if I don't win, it is likely the next player with similar or more experience on the map and setting will win...aka Kiron, or MC, or (insert high ranking player). This is called normal! Just because I don't win, why must you insist someone OTHER than Kiron should win? Kiron's win rate is also about 50%. Just because I don't win does that mean Kiron can't win and vice versa? It follows naturally that the most experience and luckier players wins. One more complex maps, flatrate and more players, luck is less of a factor, so experience have more weight. These are two sides to the same coin. When you are specifically looking for something it's called bias when in fact there really is nothing there.
Chariot's arguments makes more sense if my win rates was atrocious without kiron and vice versa and only together can we win games. But we can win games fine on our own and when playing together, it's not an anomoly if one of us don't win, the other does especially when most of the field is far less experienced players. When you throw in more high rankers, you tend to see more mix of winners like MC, jsnyder, killface, etc.
The only time a mistake happened was that deal regarding 3 outside games due to a misunderstanding of the rules as kiron already admitted was a mistake (okay that is where we can say is luck based, kiron got to go first all 3 games, where going first pretty much decides who wins!).
P.S. i'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to explain facts