Why are High Ranks afraid of each other?

[mightyleemoon]

Browsing through games it's always amusing that triples or quadruples are filled with 2 or 3 High Ranks on a team with no challengers. And when they do start to fill up...it's always with Low Ranks...you pretty much never see a High Rank sign up to oppose.

So...I was wondering...why do the high ranks fear each other?

I was playing against the tag team of Gustaf (something or other) and Crash. Gustaf said it was because all of the other High Ranks are afraid to play him. Yet...I don't exactly see him jumping in line to play against games started by High Ranks...

So...I was just curious as to why that is.

[Larry Mal]

Punks.

[detlef]

OK, now I'm confused. The other day somebody was bashing high ranked players for not taking on all comers and only playing among themselves. Now they're afraid to play each other? Which is it?

To answer your question regarding trips and quads, those guys are out there mining for points from newbie pick up teams. The pay off is small but there's no way in hell that a bunch of randoms are going to beat guys who are good at the game and used to playing with each other. Hell, there's a decent chance that somebody joining won't even know some of the basic rules of team games.

I think it's a rather cheesy way of earning points but it's hardly uncommon.

The thing is, I've joined one or two of those games figuring I could help captain a team of inexperienced players and perhaps take some points off those guys. Problem is, as often as not, you end up getting stuck with somebody who either deadbeats or does something really stupid like attack a teammate who's got 3 armies on a spot.

Oh, and, provided the format isn't too strange and I don't think I'm in for an ambush (yet another form of mining ala Benjicat is dead and his Waterloo fog games), I'll sign myself and my regular partner up against them and take our shots. So, at least some of us aren't afraid of going toe to toe with a ranked team.

[sherkaner]

high ranking players hate playing with noobs (those that start attacking teammates or seem to be doing random moves..), which is why they usually join teams with high-ranking players and don't like starting a team they can't drop afterwards.

And if a high-ranker joins, the other spots are usually filled quickly.

[yeti_c]

(yet another form of mining ala Benjicat is dead and his Waterloo fog games)

Hmmm - I have to defy this... I started about 50 team quads games about 3 weeks ago... and I had a number of players join both for and against me of different ranks...

I wasn't mining in anyway possible... I just started a load of games - and people joined... All I wanted to do was play a lot of Quad Waterloo Fog games... cos they're good fun.

C.

[detlef]

(yet another form of mining ala Benjicat is dead and his Waterloo fog games)

Hmmm - I have to defy this... I started about 50 team quads games about 3 weeks ago... and I had a number of players join both for and against me of different ranks...

I wasn't mining in anyway possible... I just started a load of games - and people joined... All I wanted to do was play a lot of Quad Waterloo Fog games... cos they're good fun.

C.

Hmmm, what you have said does not defy this. I can assure you that if I started a ton of fogged games on that map I wouldn't be mining, I'd be getting freaking mined! None the less, dude seems to have some insanely gaudy record with those settings. Thus, continuing to set those games up, in his case, is mining.

To me that's not unlike playing a video game that you're really good at on the easiest settings and just going through the motions.

[firth4eva]

It's because they feel the ranking system is unfair and they have a false rank or their opponent does.

[Ditocoaf]

Personally, I can never really play team games. Whenever I see a team game, it's something like three captains on one side, and one cook on the other. Is anyone really going to put themself in that position? And I know that if I start a team game, it'll be the same: only cooks and cadets, and privates will want to play with a private or cadet, so I'll end up with a team about my skill level. That's all well and good, but as soon as my team is filled up with like-skilled people, the other will fill up with experts looking for easy targets. So it's hard to get a team game going with reasonable teams for me.

[yeti_c]

(yet another form of mining ala Benjicat is dead and his Waterloo fog games)

Hmmm - I have to defy this... I started about 50 team quads games about 3 weeks ago... and I had a number of players join both for and against me of different ranks...

I wasn't mining in anyway possible... I just started a load of games - and people joined... All I wanted to do was play a lot of Quad Waterloo Fog games... cos they're good fun.

C.

Hmmm, what you have said does not defy this. I can assure you that if I started a ton of fogged games on that map I wouldn't be mining, I'd be getting freaking mined! None the less, dude seems to have some insanely gaudy record with those settings. Thus, continuing to set those games up, in his case, is mining.

To me that's not unlike playing a video game that you're really good at on the easiest settings and just going through the motions.

Hmmm - If you check I think all the Quads and Trips on Waterloo that I've played I've lost 1... of the open games - All are in winning positions - except 1 which is in the balance...

And I've thoroughly enjoyed winning all of them...

But now that I've won them all - am I now not allowed to create any more?

C.

[mightyleemoon]

Personally, I can never really play team games. Whenever I see a team game, it's something like three captains on one side, and one cook on the other. Is anyone really going to put themself in that position? And I know that if I start a team game, it'll be the same: only cooks and cadets, and privates will want to play with a private or cadet, so I'll end up with a team about my skill level. That's all well and good, but as soon as my team is filled up with like-skilled people, the other will fill up with experts looking for easy targets. So it's hard to get a team game going with reasonable teams for me.

Pretty much.

And...I would challenge anyone to go find a game...use the following criteria:

Waiting for Players
Triples
Quadruples
Public

Tell me what you see. It's mostly 2 or 3 High Ranks waiting for someone to start filling the other team.

And who said High Ranks wont play Low Ranks? From what I've seen here in my few short weeks...it's all they will play.

There should be an option that allows only people of like rank into a game.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

(yet another form of mining ala Benjicat is dead and his Waterloo fog games)

Hmmm - I have to defy this... I started about 50 team quads games about 3 weeks ago... and I had a number of players join both for and against me of different ranks...

I wasn't mining in anyway possible... I just started a load of games - and people joined... All I wanted to do was play a lot of Quad Waterloo Fog games... cos they're good fun.

C.

Hmmm, what you have said does not defy this. I can assure you that if I started a ton of fogged games on that map I wouldn't be mining, I'd be getting freaking mined! None the less, dude seems to have some insanely gaudy record with those settings. Thus, continuing to set those games up, in his case, is mining.


To me that's not unlike playing a video game that you're really good at on the easiest settings and just going through the motions.

Yes I have a very good record on Waterloo in 1v1s, but that record is taking a serious bashing currently as it has become very very tricky to win from second against players who know what they are doing.

In a sense I am mining because I know that I should manage to get a net gain in points (although as they are all public games, any loss against someone with "only"1400 pts needs to be balanced by 4 wins for me to break even)... however the suggestion that I am "just going through the motions" is completely untrue for those game where I go second - I have had to devise a whole new set of tactics to combat the various ways that others approach the map and that is a challenge (and if it wasn't a challenge I'd get bored pretty quickly).

A much better example of mining you could have used is that of SkyT, JR or MOBAJOBG say. I don't have a problem with them, but I feel they "go through the motions", more than I, although the adrenaline of a loss for SkyT costing SO many points probably mitigates this for him too.

As an aside, there is a new "Luck vs Strategy" thread today, where it is suggested that playing 2 player games on large maps, with no cards, limited forts, and in the fog is the most strategic you can get on CC - and that happens to describe my favourite setting down to a tee....

[RiskTycoon]

there is a simple answer here.... most (not all) higher ranks have pals.... these pals play with them regularly on team games.... what the OPer is seeing is lower ranks (whom might not have found pals to play with regularly on team games yet) joining games .... simple as that.... when higher ranks join team games (not all but most) they all join at once.... so that game that is sitting there waiting with no on joining against doesn't get seen by him when it fills because it doesn't "sit" after one person has joined ..... it starts and is gone from the join games list because it has started instantly instead of waiting for others to join..... simple

[owenshooter]

As an aside, there is a new "Luck vs Strategy" thread today, where it is suggested that playing 2 player games on large maps, with no cards, limited forts, and in the fog is the most strategic you can get on CC - and that happens to describe my favourite setting down to a tee....

can someone translate this? i don't speak multi..-0

[yeti_c]

As an aside, there is a new "Luck vs Strategy" thread today, where it is suggested that playing 2 player games on large maps, with no cards, limited forts, and in the fog is the most strategic you can get on CC - and that happens to describe my favourite setting down to a tee....

can someone translate this? i don't speak multi..-0

Give it a rest - you're (as ever) getting boring.

C.

[mightyleemoon]

there is a simple answer here.... most (not all) higher ranks have pals.... these pals play with them regularly on team games.... what the OPer is seeing is lower ranks (whom might not have found pals to play with regularly on team games yet) joining games .... simple as that.... when higher ranks join team games (not all but most) they all join at once.... so that game that is sitting there waiting with no on joining against doesn't get seen by him when it fills because it doesn't "sit" after one person has joined ..... it starts and is gone from the join games list because it has started instantly instead of waiting for others to join..... simple

Got it. Those 19 pages of High Ranks waiting for people to join is just my imagination, then.

Seriously, has the idea of a setting that limits a game to participants of like rank been discussed before? If so...why was it passed on? If not...what would people think of something like that?

Far be it from me, a guy who just signed up a month or so ago and just upgraded to premium a few days ago, try to stir the pot. But...it would seem like an easy add.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

can someone translate this? i don't speak multi..-0

Give it a rest - you're (as ever) getting boring.

C.

"getting" - he GOT boring long long ago




But on topic - RT is right - high ranks DO often join other games, but will do so in a coordinated fashion...

[owenshooter]

sorry! my wife hijacked my account and has been posting!!-0

[firstholliday]

You are not looking good.

I allways join tripples games. And only play high ranks.

We go on msn, pick some opponents and join within seconds. Maybe thats why you don't see it.

High ranks like to play eachother coz of the pointsystem.

if i win from 3 cooks i will win 5 points, but if i will loose i loose 50. It's just not worth it.


But maybe you are right in a way. I know 2 members (high ranked) that put me on ignore, coz of joining, they like to play cooks.


1st

[detlef]

there is a simple answer here.... most (not all) higher ranks have pals.... these pals play with them regularly on team games.... what the OPer is seeing is lower ranks (whom might not have found pals to play with regularly on team games yet) joining games .... simple as that.... when higher ranks join team games (not all but most) they all join at once.... so that game that is sitting there waiting with no on joining against doesn't get seen by him when it fills because it doesn't "sit" after one person has joined ..... it starts and is gone from the join games list because it has started instantly instead of waiting for others to join..... simple

Got it. Those 19 pages of High Ranks waiting for people to join is just my imagination, then.

Seriously, has the idea of a setting that limits a game to participants of like rank been discussed before? If so...why was it passed on? If not...what would people think of something like that?

Far be it from me, a guy who just signed up a month or so ago and just upgraded to premium a few days ago, try to stir the pot. But...it would seem like an easy add.

This brings up the point I made in my first post. What you are discussing basically happens in the Callouts forum where ranked players advertise private games to other ranked players. This, btw, is why you're not seeing these games, because they're not out there on the public list.

Of course, far more often than someone like you coming along and saying ranked players need to quit picking on lower ranked players and play each other more often, somebody is bitching about the fact that higher ranked players only play against their peers rather than in open games.

So, what's it gonna be?

[detlef]

(yet another form of mining ala Benjicat is dead and his Waterloo fog games)

Hmmm - I have to defy this... I started about 50 team quads games about 3 weeks ago... and I had a number of players join both for and against me of different ranks...

I wasn't mining in anyway possible... I just started a load of games - and people joined... All I wanted to do was play a lot of Quad Waterloo Fog games... cos they're good fun.

C.

Hmmm, what you have said does not defy this. I can assure you that if I started a ton of fogged games on that map I wouldn't be mining, I'd be getting freaking mined! None the less, dude seems to have some insanely gaudy record with those settings. Thus, continuing to set those games up, in his case, is mining.

To me that's not unlike playing a video game that you're really good at on the easiest settings and just going through the motions.

Hmmm - If you check I think all the Quads and Trips on Waterloo that I've played I've lost 1... of the open games - All are in winning positions - except 1 which is in the balance...

And I've thoroughly enjoyed winning all of them...

But now that I've won them all - am I now not allowed to create any more?

C.

Oh for godsakes, do what ever the hell you want. If you enjoy it, great. I, for one, start getting bored with any game (let alone cc format) that winning has nearly become a foregone conclusion. Perhaps that's just me.

Tell me knowing a map really well and taking on teams of strangers who may or may not have ever played it all is any different than playing a video game you've mastered on the easiest setting.

[mightyleemoon]

This brings up the point I made in my first post. What you are discussing basically happens in the Callouts forum where ranked players advertise private games to other ranked players. This, btw, is why you're not seeing these games, because they're not out there on the public list.

Of course, far more often than someone like you coming along and saying ranked players need to quit picking on lower ranked players and play each other more often, somebody is bitching about the fact that higher ranked players only play against their peers rather than in open games.

So, what's it gonna be?

What's it gonna be? You make it sound like I am flip-flopping on the issue.

And, you seem to be under the impression that I am complaining about something. I'm not saying they are just picking on Low Rank. I am saying they appear afraid to play each other. No need to be so sensitive. I'm just wondering why there are pages on top of pages out there like that. Maybe it's the same reason the majority of investing done is low risk investments?

I'm also under the impression that you think it a bad idea to have an option when you create a game that limits the game to people of the same rank. Why do you think it's a bad idea?

[mightyleemoon]

You are not looking good.

I didn't get much sleep?

[detlef]

This brings up the point I made in my first post. What you are discussing basically happens in the Callouts forum where ranked players advertise private games to other ranked players. This, btw, is why you're not seeing these games, because they're not out there on the public list.

Of course, far more often than someone like you coming along and saying ranked players need to quit picking on lower ranked players and play each other more often, somebody is bitching about the fact that higher ranked players only play against their peers rather than in open games.

So, what's it gonna be?

What's it gonna be? You make it sound like I am flip-flopping on the issue.

And, you seem to be under the impression that I am complaining about something. I'm not saying they are just picking on Low Rank. I am saying they appear afraid to play each other. No need to be so sensitive. I'm just wondering why there are pages on top of pages out there like that. Maybe it's the same reason the majority of investing done is low risk investments?

I'm also under the impression that you think it a bad idea to have an option when you create a game that limits the game to people of the same rank. Why do you think it's a bad idea?

I think it's a fine idea, I'm just saying that people are already doing that.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11593
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46477
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36429
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29933

It's just that they're not public games so they aren't on the "pages and pages" of games you're looking at.

Do a search in the game finder on on-going private games rather than public ones, you'll see plenty.

Also, I'm not saying that you are flip-flopping, rather that there's you on one side arguing (incorrectly as it turns out that ranked players don't play each other and other complaining that they only play each other. Certainly both can't have their way.

Lastly, I'm not being defensive so much as simply trying to point out that you're misinformed here.

[oVo]

My preference is playing higher ranked players for the potential of it being a really good game and has nothing to do with points. Points are not the issue. f*ck 'em! I just want a good game.

Oh... in answer to the subject line... they aren't.

[yeti_c]

(yet another form of mining ala Benjicat is dead and his Waterloo fog games)

Hmmm - I have to defy this... I started about 50 team quads games about 3 weeks ago... and I had a number of players join both for and against me of different ranks...

I wasn't mining in anyway possible... I just started a load of games - and people joined... All I wanted to do was play a lot of Quad Waterloo Fog games... cos they're good fun.

C.

Hmmm, what you have said does not defy this. I can assure you that if I started a ton of fogged games on that map I wouldn't be mining, I'd be getting freaking mined! None the less, dude seems to have some insanely gaudy record with those settings. Thus, continuing to set those games up, in his case, is mining.

To me that's not unlike playing a video game that you're really good at on the easiest settings and just going through the motions.

Hmmm - If you check I think all the Quads and Trips on Waterloo that I've played I've lost 1... of the open games - All are in winning positions - except 1 which is in the balance...

And I've thoroughly enjoyed winning all of them...

But now that I've won them all - am I now not allowed to create any more?

C.

Oh for godsakes, do what ever the hell you want. If you enjoy it, great. I, for one, start getting bored with any game (let alone cc format) that winning has nearly become a foregone conclusion. Perhaps that's just me.

Tell me knowing a map really well and taking on teams of strangers who may or may not have ever played it all is any different than playing a video game you've mastered on the easiest setting.

Winning those games was far from easy... A number of the players who joined weren't familiar with Waterloo - yet some of the opponents obviously were... (Yes there were some games where I had a team of experts but far and away not most of them)... I suspect that me playing with a number of people unfamiliar with the map has now taught a few people some of the nuances of that map... (I know that playing with Benjikat taught me a lot about the map - and I passed that knowledge onto my team members - and we all had good fun)

So just to underline - I was taking on teams of strangers - with a team of strangers of my own... I had plenty of DB's on my side of the divide too.

C.