Conquer Club

Accused:

Frostbite



The accused are suspected of:

Severe PM Abuse
Other: Falsified Ratings



Game number(s):

Game 4651171
Game 4783419



Comments:

Not sure if this is considered Cheating, but it is definitely Abuse.

I had initially played Frostbite in game Game 4651171 in which I gave him a below average rating (2, 3, and 2 stars) because of the way he played the game. He didn't have the best tactics, and clearly went back on a supposed truce we had earlier in the game. Therefore, I gave him a backstabber rating as I saw fit to do so.

On Tuesday, April 28, Frostbite sent me an IM asking for an explanation for the rating of which I gladly gave him. He then went on to complain and stated, "You wait you will be sorry".

He then had the nerve to join a team game which I was a part of (Game 4783419). Whether he threw the game or not, I do not know. But, he did play very poorly. Once that game was over, he gave me a very poor rating (1 star all around) with tags of: Backstabber, Uncooperative, Sore Loser, and Poor Strategy. When I IM'd him for an explanation of the rating, his only response was, "I left ratings as I saw fit, as I always do. If we have different opinions, too bad. Sorry...sound familiar?"

I would gladly accept a very poor rating if it were reasonable, and the rater is able to explain his reasonings. However, that is not the case with Frostbite.

I don't see where you consider your below average rating of him to be justified hun.

You still won that first game, and it was 3 player, in 3 player it's all about the scales. You can't make an indefinit truce because the one who benifits most from a set truce is the player that suffers less losses. In 3 player, your truces have to go round by round, almost play by play, your truces have to be flexible based on what the 3rd party does because if you offer someone a truce and the 3rd party attacks you damaging you only, the person you offered the truce to is unaffected. Sometimes it's smarter for you not to fight back against the player who attacked you but even out the damage by attacking the person who wasn't attacked by the other player.

In 3 player games truces's don't have the same longevity that they would in a 5 or 6 player game hun. It's that simple, a 3 player game is always shifting each time 1 player makes a move.

That being explained, you asked Frostbite to focus on blue for a bit so that you both wouldn't lose, Frostbite gave a non-commited agreement. You set no terms, no round numbers, nothing to solidify a truce and therefore you cannot claim that he betrayed a truce.

You did nonetheless even though you won the game and rated him accordingly. You claim the main reason for rating him as such was his neglect of a truce that he never officially set any terms for, and that you never provided any terms for. You may feel that he betrayed a truce but officially there was no set truce with rules. That is your problem for not having solidified terms. Specific terms. Then you rated him for "betraying" a truce that had no terms. "Let's focus on blue so we don't get our asses kicked" does not mean in anyway that he's commiting to leave you alone.

Theresa

Thank you for your response, Theresa.

The topic of discussion is not how I have rated Frostbite, but by how he abused the system by joining another game of mine simply to give me a bad rating in return. I still feel a rating which is slightly below average (remember, average is 3 stars) is justified for his first game with me. Truce or no truce, I don't think he played it well.

Do you think it was reasonable for him to give me a falsified rating just because he was angry with the rating i gave him? I hope I'm not the only one who thinks ratings should be about how one feels you have played in the game rather than personal issues they have with you.

i agree with SE on this one
except
i feel two wrongs dont make a right
i think BOTH should get the ratings removed
except i think Frostbite deserves a bit more because he did his with a malicious intent rather than just being an oblivious blockhead
just my opinion

Thank you, a.sub.

However, I still do not feel that my ratings were in the wrong. He agreed to my truce, and the very next turn he attacks me and takes away a bonus that very nearly lost the game for the both of us. I was very lucky to have survived the game at all, much less win the thing.

Unless I read the rules wrong, a three star rating is considered Average. I gave him an average rating for gameplay, because he didn't perform in any way outstanding that might constitute him being better than average. His attitude and fair play ratings suffered because I felt I was wronged in the game. I felt betrayed and backstabbed, which is exactly why I left the rating I did. It was not out of spite or any other malicious reason. And, isn't that what a rating should be about?

Let's put this thing in order lol.

(Round 4)
2009-04-11 10:43:36 - Jough deployed 4 troops on N7
2009-04-11 10:43:38 - Jough assaulted N8 from N7 and conquered it from Frostbite

2009-04-11 10:45:47 - Jough: hey red, how bout we focus on blue for a blue for a little, or he'll end up kickin both our asses

2009-04-11 10:46:35 - Jough reinforced N8 with 2 troops from E1
2009-04-11 10:47:14 - Jough gets spoils

So you take a territ from Frostbite and then ask him to focus on blue.

(Round 5 - Blue)
2009-04-11 17:09:00 - justakid receives 2 troops for holding Orange Octagons
2009-04-11 17:09:00 - justakid receives 4 troops for 14 regions
2009-04-11 17:09:15 - justakid deployed 6 troops on A10
2009-04-11 17:09:18 - justakid assaulted A12 from A10 and conquered it from Jough
2009-04-11 17:09:32 - justakid assaulted N1 from A12 and conquered it from Jough
2009-04-11 17:10:05 - justakid reinforced A7 with 2 troops from N1
2009-04-11 17:10:11 - justakid gets spoils

(Round 5 -Frostbite)
2009-04-11 22:33:35 - Frostbite receives 2 troops for holding Purple Diamonds
2009-04-11 22:33:35 - Frostbite receives 5 troops for 15 regions
2009-04-11 22:34:08 - Frostbite deployed 7 troops on A9
2009-04-11 22:34:13 - Frostbite assaulted A8 from A9 and conquered it from justakid
2009-04-11 22:34:19 - Frostbite assaulted A5 from A8 and conquered it from justakid
2009-04-11 22:34:26 - Frostbite gets spoils

*Chat*
2009-04-11 22:34:33 - Frostbite: i'm ok with that green

(Round 5 - Jough)
2009-04-11 23:22:18 - Jough receives 3 troops for 11 regions
2009-04-11 23:22:31 - Jough deployed 3 troops on N2
2009-04-11 23:22:32 - Jough assaulted N1 from N2 and conquered it from justakid
2009-04-11 23:22:37 - Jough assaulted A12 from N1 and conquered it from justakid
2009-04-11 23:22:54 - Jough gets spoils


(Round 6 - Blue)
Very simply... he attacks Frostbite 3 times and you twice.

(Round 6 - Both you and Frostbite)

You both only attack blue. You each attack him once.


(Round 7 - Blue)
Attacks Frostbite once

(Round 7 - Frostbite)
Attacks blue 3 times! And you only once. (N8 - Presumably to break a bonus)

(Round 7 - Jough)

You attack Frostbite 5 times running him pretty much out of Europe.


From there I will just keep it very general, even after you attacked him 5 times, in round 8, Frostbite only attacks you once and attacks blue 3 times and then you attack him 6 times that round.


The game log tells the story about you asking Frostbite to focus on blue... the only time shortly after that you were attacked was at a key bonus-breaking area. Frostbite only made minor attacks against you taking only 1 area and each time he did, he attacked blue 3 times as much.

You responded by attacking Frostbite in round 7 five times while he fought blue 3 times and you only once. In round 8 he attacks you one time only (yet again) and blue 3 times. You attack ONLY Frostbite in response.

It seems you asked him to focus on blue with you, and you tried to take some heavy bonus areas and for whatever reason made him feel uncomfortable with your own expansion, even then he only attacked you 1 time each of round 7 and 8 demonstrating that he was disciplining himself, Each time he attacked blue 3 times, in 7 and 8, you only attacked Frostbite.

So now that this is cleared up, I would like to see you tell me what Frostbite should have done to earn "exceptional" play because I think he played exceptionally.

Jasmine

SE i think its obvious
frosty shoulda thrown the game like a normal person!!!

This is why Jasmine is the patient one in the family, I never would have thought to chronologically expose the game. Nice touch sis, rather humbling if I do say so.

That being said. I would like to hear also what Jough expected from Frostbite. Yes you are right Jough that ranting players is to reflect the experience but where do you get off saying that Frostbite played below average because you had to be lucky to win?

You are also right in saying this thread pertains to his abuse which I'm sure is baseless but the point you are missing is that, even if his rating is retaliation, you have no leg to stand on by confronting him because he has cleverly manoevered his rating.

Your "leg to stand on" would have been to prove that your rating was infact legitimate. Jasmine's probed out out and shown that Frostbite's play was not as bad as you made it seem, in so doing, she's shown that your expectations of Frostbite's play are irrational.

As soon as you asked him to focus on blue, in rounds 7 and 8 you had attacked blue 0 times and attacked Frostbite 11 times. In rounds 7 and 8 Frostbite had attacked you twice and blue 6 times. Your requirments were irrational if you expected anymore cooperation than that.

If you expect someone to roll over and play dead for you, they obviously must dissapoint. It is not something anyone should try. With irrational expectations, you should expect to have your expectations dissapointed.

Therefore...Ergo... concordedly, in order for Frostbite to have recieved better than average play ratings from you he would have had to meet your expectations (which in this game would mean throwing it to you). You cannot say that his play was bad, you cannot say that he broke a truce, you yourself abused him in round 7 and 8 alone while asking him to fight blue and guess what? He still fought blue!

Yes maybe he rated you badly but now prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that you showed him you were better? If we go by your rating system and explanation, you judged your experience with him based on how you saw him play, you judged him for falling short of your expectations even though your expectations were impossible. (I can't get over that he attacked blue 6 times and you twice and you attacked him 11 times and said "he" betrayed "you" because of those 2 times.)

You rated him for that and thought it was justified, if you can't explain why it's justified then you have no leg to stand on in terms of challenging his justification.

Theresa
PS: I agree with you a.sub lol, 2 wrongs don't make a right but like our father says: "A defense attourney doesn't put a murderer back on the street, the incompetence of the attacking lawyer puts the murderer back on the street. We don't need to prove that a killer is innocent, most times we can't, we simply need to cause the attacking lawyer to fall short on his case to prove that he is guilty."

In this case, Jough is saying that Frostbite's rating is unjustified and retaliatory, he defends this by saying his rating "was" justifiable and we've seen that Jough can rate Frostbite for falling short of impossible expectations while Frostbite must provide satisfactory reasons for his own rating?

I agree with you 100% on this but this is a case of Jough just not being able to make what would otherwise be a valid case simply because he is no better.

i agree with both of you
my solution is simple
cancel both ratings and tell both of them to go foe (i was gonna use a diff f word?) each other
simply PM frostbite and offer a truce, play a quick 1v1 and both of you shd rate each other 4 stars

Instead of looking at who took this many, and who took that many territories, you should take a look at the game as a whole.

Blue was gaining strength because of Frostbite and my bickering in the west. He wouldn't let me have 'N' and I wouldn't let him have 'S'. However, since he was also fending off blue in the 'F' region, I decided that a truce was in order that would benefit the both of us. He could keep his 'S' so he could focus on blue in 'F' while I could keep 'N' while focusing on blue via 'A'.

My attack against Frostbite imediately before the truce was simply to take back the bonus for 'N'. I could have continued further and taken his 'S' again. However, that would have resulted in blues victory. Our truce lasted a very short time where we were barely able to even get blue under control.

At the time Frostbite attacked me, he had 14 regions, blue had 15, and I had 11. Both Frostbite and blue held a territory (given they were both only worth +2, but anyone who has played that map can agree that they are a prime territory) while I had none. At this point, I hardly think taking one of my territories is good gameplay. Why waste armies that could be spent forting against a more powerful player? At his attack, I realize he has broken our truce, so I begin taking him out of 'E' to hopefully gain regions to get an extra troop the next round. I obviously shouldn't try to take 'N' anymore with him coming at me from the south and blue from the west. It's just not plausible...

Luckily, this strategy works out for me in the end, and the path that Frostbite took leads him to a loss. Perhaps if he would have stuck with our truce and forted against blue, he would have had a chance at winning the game. At the time the truce was made, I didn't think I had a chance in hell at winning...

I hope you can agree that its not just about how many regions you take from someone, or how many they take from you, but rather what regions are taken and when. I wouldn't have cared if he took me out of 'E' so he could gain control of it. Just as long as he used that extra boost to help himself against the more powerful player. What benefit did he gain from taking 'N8'? Absolutely none...

Which is why he is average.

Oh, and to answer the question about what would make me consider him above average? Had he used me, and the truce, to his advantage to become strong enough to take the both of us out. Which he clearly did not do.

Jough wrote:Oh, and to answer the question about what would make me consider him above average? Had he used me, and the truce, to his advantage to become strong enough to take the both of us out. Which he clearly did not do.

Wouldn't you then have rated him poorly for breaking the truce or lying or deceiving you about the terms? You can argue both sides of the fence here but in the end...the only real way to resolve this to have both of you just personally remove the ratings you have given each other and foe and move on. You don't have to see each other ever again. And on a side note...if you didn't enjoy playing with Frostbite because you felt he betrayed you, why didn't you foe him after the game...If you felt so strongly about it as you seem to now then this entire situation could have been resolved before it ever started.

If a player has australia, it's a 2 man bonus, if a player has south america, it's a 2 man bonus... this are considered minors. If a player goes for North america, I never let them control it, it takes 1 round and you get +5 because of it, it's the same as having 2 australias or 2 South-America's.

Now... you won the game hun so a mixture of your good tactics along with the mistakes of others lead to an undeniable outcome. That being said... he did not play badly whatsoever. He had nothing to gain by focussing on blue if you took NA... he'd have to ask blue to partner against you, then you'd probably have complained about that.

When you ask for help against somebody, it's never a good idea to try to take bonuses more powerful than the one you're trying to overthrow.

As for looking at the game as a whole, the game is the sum of it's parts. The parts of the game showed that Frostbite fought blue 11 times in 2 rounds while you completely neglected to fight blue and instead fought Frostbite instead then blamed him for a backstabbing? A charge based on a truce that you didn't even set standards for.

"Let's focus on blue so that he doesn't win" does not translate into "Let me take a bonus worth more than double yours then we can fight together." Even if you both focussed on blue, your decision to aquire a bonus for yourself made you even more of a target to Frostbite than blue was and he still fought blue more.

So what it boils down to is this... you wanted to take a 5 man bonus bordering Frostbite's 2 man bonus. Frostbite obviously couldn't allow that, you asked that you both focus on blue and you asked it very openly with no specifics or attachements. You then decided you would use this time of "peace" between you and Frostbite to earn yourself a powerful bonus. Maybe you were planning ahead for the aftermatch of blue's demise... I don't care. What I do care about is that you were too ambitious while asking Frostbite for help against a common opponent.

If I ask for help against someone, I try to avoid becomming more powerful than the person I ask for help against. Frostbite didn't do anything wrong in trying to keep you from getting +5. That is part of the game, you can't be hunting for +5 where +2 is status quo and expect others to fight against each other.

In order for Frostbite to agree to focus on blue, he had to make sure you weren't getting the NA bonus. I would have had to make sure of the same, I'm sure 90% of the players here on CC would have done the same, it is a game with 1 winner and my concern is about the game leader, not about a specific player, the role of game leader shifts time and again and if it shifts to someone I'm working with, I have to take action.

This is a game of diverse strategies so saying someone's strategy was bad needs to be proven to be bad. There are many good strategies that are simply different based on circumstance, very few are commonly "bad" at all times. You said your rating for him was justified and that he was only average because he

a) Didn't honour a truce (paraphrased)
b) didn't let you take a bonus of your own.

I can tell you upfront hun... there was no specifics to the truce you gave him. He attacked blue infinitly more than you did in those 2 rounds while keeping you from being a threat he'd have to team up on.

And b? For you to take NA, he'd have to let blue take Asia to fight you, if he stopped you from taking NA... he would still be able to work with you hoping you could fight blue. If I cooperate with someone, and make the conscious decision to work with them, they had better not lose track of the fact that I still have to fight them when the immediate threat is over. If they build themselves too much while asking me to fight an opponent with them, I have to abdicate because they are becomming more of a powerful enemy than our common enemy.

It's all about timing and you got good and lucky timing with your grab for power and won the game because of it. That in no way meant Frostbite played bad and therefor his rating of you is as justifiable as your rating of him. Both are ridiculous, both are wrong and as a.sub said, should be removed, but if your rating stands because his reasonable play seemed simply average or less than average to you, then his rating stands because your play may have seemed below average to him.

Jasmine

if you didn't enjoy playing with Frostbite because you felt he betrayed you, why didn't you foe him after the game...If you felt so strongly about it as you seem to now then this entire situation could have been resolved before it ever started.

I DID foe him after he made those rude remarks via PM to me. He can still join one of my games; I just won't see his chat or the other games he is in...

Rabid bunnies: One thing you have to remember is that Frostbite had control of almost the entire middle section ('F' and 'E'). He could just as easily let me keep my bonus in 'N' and gotten himself a bonus in either of those to even up the playing field between the both of us. By taking advantage of the truce, he could have then gotten rid of blue and been better off than I was, having 'S', 'F', and 'E'. Yes, I realize 'E' is hard to keep on that map, but even 'S' and 'F' together give just as many troops as 'N' does...

but if your rating stands because his reasonable play seemed simply average or less than average to you, then his rating stands because your play may have seemed below average to him.

No. He gave me a poor loser rating. How is that even possible when I haven't lost to him?

The fact that he had most of "F" and "E" shouldn't entice him to let you take "N" simply because "F" and "E" are easier targets for the player controlling Asia to confront. If you took "N" and bottlecapped it at "Alaska", Frostbite could presume to expect blue's full force or you would have to presume that blue would offer a truce to Frostbite because of your new bonus.

No. He gave me a poor loser rating. How is that even possible when I haven't lost to him?

You're right, that's where he's got the excessive point. You've not lost. He's clearly retaliating but it is only based on the "common sense" theory.

How could you call him a backstabber when you guys didn't have a set truce? You can't ... but you did anyway. "Let's focus on blue so that he doesn't win" doesn't mean: "Let me take a bonus worth twice your own."

In that map... the N-bonus is my favorite, 3 borders, easily defensable and you still have Asia that you can use for a "cold war" type of tactic if you want to convince people that they should be less worried about you. For just 2 men more, the player holding Asia has to take more and have already taken australia. That's alot of work to take Asia but because the "7" is associated to it, I can use that as a scapegoat to veer people off of my "5".

Europe is also "5" but it is easily attacke-able by almost anyone at anypoint so it's easier to defend NA.

You were the one who proposed working together with Frostbite. You were the one who said it was so he didn't win and you defined a common enemy. Then you went for a bonus in NA which would have been the most powerful bonus in the game at that time. Frostbite's potential to take Europe and Africa is just that, potential, unless he had it all and was generating revenue, he would be stupid to let you have NA.

You would have been naive to expect him to let you have NA after asking him for help against blue in asia and of course the numbers don't lie, you absolutely raped him in those 2 rounds after asking for his help just because he kept you from getting +5. (Which again, nobody would let you do if they were working with you, then they become your lackey).

In this 3 player game, you were playing for you to win, Frostbite was playing for Frostbite to win, you both weren't just playing to keep blue from winning. Your rating of frostbite reflects resentment that he didn't let you get the biggest bonus in the game. Your rating of him stands officially as "a backstabber" even though he didn't "backstab" you because you both never officially set any terms to a truce.

"Let's focus on blue" means keep blue in check, it doesn't mean you and Frostbite go unchecked, you're both still fighting each other.

Frostbite played a terrific game. You played a good game too... blue, who was the common force early on played as best he could but in the end, 3 player games are about getting lucky when someone else makes a mistake. I didn't read through all the game to see how you won in the end but I do know that for the time you're complaining about, Frostbite played a great game.

I would never let someone control NA. I would never make a move for it unless I could rally opposition against Asia or unless I could overpower my defenses in which case I wouldn't need to worry about asking for a truce, I'd just power forward. You were trying to take the most powerful bonus while asking the other player to focus on another player. Frostbite still focussed on blue and you seemed more concerned with taking NA than fighting blue.

This is understandable because you were out for your own win, so obviously you had to be selfish but to rate him like you did because he didn't give you the most powerful bonus on a platter is awful. To rate him a backstabber when you didn't get an agreement on terms is false.

Just like being rated a sore loser when you win is false.

Jasmine

PS: In all of this, I don't want you to take any of it pesonally, I just want you to know that no skilled player would have played any different than Frostbite here because in Frostbite's situation, if he had most of "E" and most of "F"... then "his" reasonable strategy would be to keep you "under control" while both fighting blue so that when blue was done, he would be able to beat you, that wouldn't have been possible if you took NA. Frostbite only did what any other skilled player would do.

3 player games is all about the "scales" as said before, and often, when you do your round, you are giving the balance advantage to another player if not taking it yourself. In 3 players each time you attack 1 person, you damage them but because there are so few players, damaging 1 helps the other. So each round you attack 1 person, you have to wonder if you are helping the 3rd player too much. It's a game of deciding who you feel more comfortable "leaving alone for now" and you hope to be the one "left alone" when the other players take their rounds. 3 players is all about establishing threat and trying not to be percieved as the one in control. Your moves were just too blatant for Frostbite to accept because even if you took NA, you wouldn't let him control Africa, Europe and SA. You would probably have broken Iceland and maybe left him with Africa for a short time.

RB, i read ur post and it was brilliant but let me give you advice as a friends
dont waste so much breath on these things
most ppl wont listen

No. You may all be right. If so many people disagree with me, than I should probably reconsider, right? Perhaps Frostbite wasn't a backstabber. Perhaps he was just playing what he thought would benefit himself the most (which is the point of the game, right?).

But, he still lost, and I still feel as though he is no better than average. In other words, how do we determine what is average? I give many 3 star ratings because I think some people could have played better, however they weren't horrible. I also receive many ratings that I don't think are fair, but haven't complained because the rater may have a different opinion (Hoodbridge's recent 1 star rating of me, for example). I simply brought to your attention Frostbite because I thought he was abusing the system.

So, where do we draw the line?

I'm going to address your message here in a couple of points because I have a few minutes.

No. You may all be right. If so many people disagree with me, than I should probably reconsider, right? Perhaps Frostbite wasn't a backstabber. Perhaps he was just playing what he thought would benefit himself the most (which is the point of the game, right?).

That's a good objective assessement. When you step back from being in the game, take a few breathers (it'll come to you faster and easier because you won in the end, for the people that lose, they'll be sore over it for a long time) and look at it objectively from "outside" the box, you aren't playing anymore, you are able to see the game through the eyes of all players. You aren't affected by the "hope" that something will work or the "worry" about someone collecting a bonus, the game is over, finished, and now you are left studying how it got to that point.

When it comes to deals that I make... I go by word of mouth so to speak. Any and all terms must be announced in game chat and if not, I am not held to anything nor do I hold someone else to something. Things like time-frames... specific areas... specific concerns... these are all part of good diplomacy but because it's a game, I try to squeeze the best deal out for myself. (Much like had you been able to claim and hold NA while blue and Frostbite would have been fighting.)

I never lie about a deal. If I make that deal I don't turn on it for convenience, that's how I define backstabbing. "Let's not attack border A and B for 4 rounds..." only to turn on someone in round 2 because they get lucky and suddenly the deal is bad for me. In this game diplomacy is important but because I'll play with these players again 99% of the time (I have no one on my foe list - ... and I've played with some doozies.) I stick to my word. If I make a deal, it's a risk that in following through, I hope to come out on top. Honouring my word means that my deal could backfire if my co-dealer gets lucky and I can't attack because of our agreed terms. It wouldn't serve me well to go back on my word to win 1 game because every game after that, who would I be able to deal with? You can only break your word so many times before nobody trusts you or wants to work with you.

I win games based on deals that my co-dealers have faith in me to follow through on. Because they have faith in my following our deal, I can squeeze the better deal out for myself hoping they accept it. Most times it works for me, sometimes it might backfire on me but I've never broken my word on an established deal because if I ever play with that player in the futur, I want to be able to have diplomacy in my arsenal. Losing your diplomatic power to win 1 game is not a good investment unless you plan to foe and never play with that player again (hence the reason I'm guessing many people foe just cuz they were pissed off by another player, no logical reason to foe but they figure that player will be biased against them in the futur).

So for me, backstabbing is when you establish a deal and turn on it because it's not convenient. Decide the convenience ahead of time, assess the risk, if you think someone will grow more than you as a result of your deal... hold off on it, don't offer one yet, let them squirm a little, run into a threat and then when you feel they are being squeezed... then offer a deal with terms of your own. Always be willing to follow through on your terms... even if you can only hope your co-dealer follows through on his/hers.

Secondly...

Jough wrote:But, he still lost, and I still feel as though he is no better than average. In other words, how do we determine what is average? I give many 3 star ratings because I think some people could have played better, however they weren't horrible. I also receive many ratings that I don't think are fair, but haven't complained because the rater may have a different opinion (Hoodbridge's recent 1 star rating of me, for example). I simply brought to your attention Frostbite because I thought he was abusing the system.

So, where do we draw the line?

This is interesting. Consider if you would, a game of chess. There is no luck in chess. It is all human error vs human cunning. Chess is won by being the surviving player and yet, both players are bound to lose pieces. There's only 1 checkmate in history that can be achieved without conquering an opponent's piece.

In chess, you need to be willing to trade, and be aggressive, but you need to be cunning and know how to get the most out of each trade. Chess is won by causing each "conflict" or "trade" to cause your opponent to lose more value than you do. The value could be pieces upfront, if you are more cunning in setting up your pieces, you can draw him into a trade that causes him to lose more than you do. You may even draw him into a trade that weakens his king's position for just a second in order to make the 1 right move at the 1 right time that ends the game and perform checkmate, even if you are short on pieces.

In a game like chess where it's all about capitalizing on error, this rating system would work.

There are average players... players that play wrecklessly but aggressive and look for trades. They get momentum for a bit but run out of steam and have nothing else they can do because they didn't plan ahead, they just "went with the flow"

There are players that are below average, they move randomly, don't set up chains, don't support their knights or their bishops and bring the queen out alone too early... allowing their opposition to trap the queen or chase it so far back into retreat that by the time you can move another piece, your opponent already has 4 or 5 pieces developped on the board just waiting to ambush whatever you move forward.

Then there are players that are exceptional. They advance, they attack the center of the board, they don't chase trades right away if they can help it, they enforce the positions. They bring their knights out to support, they bring the bishops to monitor the center, they castle bringing the rooks to their rear flanks to provide even more support. Often the game between 2 exceptional players can go several rounds with only 1 or 2 pieces being traded as both players move forward and move back, teasing an attack... then withdrawing attempting to lure their opponent into a trap.

In Chess... 1 star... 3 stars... 5 stars... perfect rating system. This conquerclub rating system for chess would be perfect because the results show the kind of player you are. A reckless player may lose in round 3 or round 33... it doesn't change the rating they would have achieved, they can't get lucky if they play reckless.

In RISK however... here on conquerclub, dice play too big of a roll (aha see what I did there-... nevermind ) to say that because someone failed in a few attacks that they played bad. Someone who has above average game tactics will end up with below-average results if the defending dice castrate them.

How do I rate? I give the benifit of the doubt, unless 100% absolutely ... irrevocably prove-able, I rate 5 stars. I assume they know what they are planning to do to win and I hope to come out on top. I have no delusions about the roll the dice play and I know that in terms of what I want and what my opponent wants... I try to emphasize their chance of bad luck. I make my deployments by judging what I would do if I were them, then trying to interrupt it. I deploy hoping to up their chances of failed dice and thus aquiring goals of my own.

I rate 5 stars as a general rule unless you show me that you had no idea what you were doing. Unless you show me that you were rude, arrogant and unpleasant. If you tell me I have to move 50 times in 5 minutes because you have time to play now and I should put my life on hold... in these cases I will rate less.

Here's one scenario for you to consider hun.

- Your opponent is dominant in australia holding 3/4, you are dominant in SA holding 3/4... your opponent deploys on the 1 area that you don't have in SA so that he can interrupt you instead of taking his bonus right away.

Now... this is the perverbial 2-face coin. He could have deployed on australia and had a better chance of taking his bonus... and leaving you the same chance... or he could have deployed on your area making it harder for you to take your obvious move successfully. He deploys to intterupt you.

People have a sense that a game "should" go a certain way based on what they see in the first few minutes. They look at the map, assess it and say: "Ok, I'm going to do this... he should do this." and if they have a different idea... oh dear. Above all else, heaven forbid their different idea conflict with what "you" wanted to do with "your" empire. This mere assessment of the game... this thought that you know what you should do and what they should do can't be trusted because you are looking at it hoping for your win, you are thinking "This is what needs to happen for me to win" and they are thinking the same. Hence you will never agree on what "Good" gameplay is for both particular players.

When you can never agree, it becomes hostile whent he first player gets accused of "not knowing what they're doing" because their accuser is saying they know better. Not intentionally... but according to Frostbite, you're rating of his gameplay as just about average conflicts with his self-analysis that he did everything he could to win.

I give 5 stars. You demonstrate that you are following a plan... any plan. That you know what you want and you're trying to do it... that you know what makes me dangerous and try to stop me... you show me these things and I will rate you 5 stars. Even if you make some moves I don't understand but I can somehow make sense of what you "might" be thinking? I'll still rate you 5 stars.

If you curse and yell and scream and go off your head about a round that went wrong... or you admit to throwing a game, or you let your emotions dictate irrational play that I can't comprehend (and I am very very patient when it comes to analyzing strategy) then I will rate accordingly.

You have to be exceptionally difficult to not get 5 stars from me.

Jasmine

Jasmine,

Thank you again for your very thorough assessment. Please don't take this the wrong way, but why is it that you have only played 28 games when judging from your forum posts it is obvious that you have been here much longer?

Here's one scenario for you to consider hun.

- Your opponent is dominant in australia holding 3/4, you are dominant in SA holding 3/4... your opponent deploys on the 1 area that you don't have in SA so that he can interrupt you instead of taking his bonus right away.

Now... this is the perverbial 2-face coin. He could have deployed on australia and had a better chance of taking his bonus... and leaving you the same chance... or he could have deployed on your area making it harder for you to take your obvious move successfully. He deploys to intterupt you.

This is where we have different opionions. You say you would have given your opponent 5 stars because, although he may have a different tactic than yours and his view of the game is different than yours, it is still a valid tactic. Well, I disagree. In this scenario in particular, Australia is by far a much better territory to hold than South America. I would think it would be insane not to take Australia first, as there is only one intrance to protect instead of two. Your opponent will have half as many troops to protect South America, and you will be able to take it from him the following round; especially with your +2.

I try to think more logically about the game, and how it will mathematically turn out in my favor. Risk isn't all about luck (I can do it too! ). I've actually gone to the extent of writing an application that will give the statistical possibilities of lost troops on a particular battle. Yeah... I get that bored...

Jough wrote:No. You may all be right. If so many people disagree with me, than I should probably reconsider, right? Perhaps Frostbite wasn't a backstabber. Perhaps he was just playing what he thought would benefit himself the most (which is the point of the game, right?).

But, he still lost, and I still feel as though he is no better than average. In other words, how do we determine what is average? I give many 3 star ratings because I think some people could have played better, however they weren't horrible. I also receive many ratings that I don't think are fair, but haven't complained because the rater may have a different opinion (Hoodbridge's recent 1 star rating of me, for example). I simply brought to your attention Frostbite because I thought he was abusing the system.

So, where do we draw the line?

thats big of you, i say you simply offer a truce
play another game with him and both of you rate each other 5 stars and let it be water under the bridge

I've played 28 games on CC. I've played RISK prior to comming here. (A few times on Finalconquest as well... not an impressive site when compared to CC however) I also play Chess.

And well... with the carreer I'm thinking about going into I have to analyse and assess quite a bit so thank you.

Jasmine

Rabid bunnies wrote:I've played 28 games on CC. I've played RISK prior to comming here. (A few times on Finalconquest as well... not an impressive site when compared to CC however) I also play Chess.

And well... with the carreer I'm thinking about going into I have to analyse and assess quite a bit so thank you.

Jasmine

o really?
what career?

Jough wrote:Jasmine,

Thank you again for your very thorough assessment. Please don't take this the wrong way, but why is it that you have only played 28 games when judging from your forum posts it is obvious that you have been here much longer?

Here's one scenario for you to consider hun.

- Your opponent is dominant in australia holding 3/4, you are dominant in SA holding 3/4... your opponent deploys on the 1 area that you don't have in SA so that he can interrupt you instead of taking his bonus right away.

Now... this is the perverbial 2-face coin. He could have deployed on australia and had a better chance of taking his bonus... and leaving you the same chance... or he could have deployed on your area making it harder for you to take your obvious move successfully. He deploys to intterupt you.

This is where we have different opionions. You say you would have given your opponent 5 stars because, although he may have a different tactic than yours and his view of the game is different than yours, it is still a valid tactic. Well, I disagree. In this scenario in particular, Australia is by far a much better territory to hold than South America. I would think it would be insane not to take Australia first, as there is only one intrance to protect instead of two. Your opponent will have half as many troops to protect South America, and you will be able to take it from him the following round; especially with your +2.

I try to think more logically about the game, and how it will mathematically turn out in my favor. Risk isn't all about luck (I can do it too! ). I've actually gone to the extent of writing an application that will give the statistical possibilities of lost troops on a particular battle. Yeah... I get that bored...

Alright... excellent let's go with this. You and I both agree that in this scenario, australia is more valuable than South America. So let's say that's what happens. You are in a game with someone, you have Indonesia... they have Siam(A7) and the other 3 Australian Territs. For them to deploy 4 on (suppose) argentina so that there are 7, then fort 2 men from eastern Australia to New Guinea to be facing 5 vs 3 (new guinea-indonesia) and 3 vs 3 (eastern - indonesia) and a 3rd 3 vs 3 (siam-indonesia) is not a bad tactic because it puts the owness on you.

You either have to deploy 4 on Brazil or Peru to take Argentina (7 vs 7) or you deploy it on indonesia to respond in kind to this player's interruption. Here's the beauty of it. Because this player moved first, and forted his 3 up to new guinea... even if you just deploy on indonesia, you will have 7 vs 5 on one border, 7 vs 3 on another border and 7 vs 3 on siam. When that player moves again and deploys 4... he will be attacking 9 vs 7 because he's so dominant in that area that his reinforcements allow him to not need to use his deployments there on the first round, in order to interrupt australia, you have to give up on South America.

There's so much to consider in a 2 player game. You attack and interrupt far more often because you're not concerned about shifting balance to one side. Different game types call for different strategies, alot more would be acceptable in a 2 player game than would be acceptable in a 3 player, 4 player or 5 player game. When you start to rate someone, or judge them for not playing the way you would, it becomes very tough to assess the accuracy of your rating system.

Jasmine

a.sub wrote:

Rabid bunnies wrote:I've played 28 games on CC. I've played RISK prior to comming here. (A few times on Finalconquest as well... not an impressive site when compared to CC however) I also play Chess.

And well... with the carreer I'm thinking about going into I have to analyse and assess quite a bit so thank you.

Jasmine

o really?
what career?

LOL -

Pops wants me to become a defense attourney as well. Normally I was turned off of it because it wasn't the "original passion" but another aspect was the thought at how long it would take for the schooling and such to be completed before I could work. Now that's not a problem considering the ... "pull" that he has so I can be guaranteed work in the field even while I'm studying. I've already worked on a few cases with him. lol it's really interesting.

Jasmine