CC's Top 100 Players DON'T PLAY 1v1 games

by **ViperOverLord** on Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:11 pm

nietzsche wrote:I got the analogy.

Some times I think people don't understand what analogies are.

The analogy is whacky. If other games have flawed systems, then that doesn't mean they should be copied.

Let's take this back to CC's alleged logic: They want an all-inclusive system.

Okay, this is not all-inclusive though. Clearly, players get to a point that they have no motivation to play scrubs. Furthermore, there are plenty of games for scrubs to play and improve and have fun. Conversely, they can become motivated to reach a higher echelon of competition and feel the satisfaction of reaching it.

The only thing CC has done is put an economic ceiling on 1v1 games. And that law is not being broken.

by **Donelladan** on Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:12 pm

This has been suggested plenty of times. The problem is we have too many apologists who think it's perfectly natural for the best players to be dormant and not play one another. It's not. It's terrible.

Which is... not the case.
"best players" play against other best players.
I mean maybe some top 100's player are inactive, but many do play games. I am in many 3k+ game, so it's only top players and we are definitely playing one another.
I didn't get your point here sorry.

by **owenshooter** on Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:35 pm

i didn't want this to get lost with the emergence of page 2...-Jn

owenshooter wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:Exceptions to every rule; but make no mistake, THAT IS THE RULE (See title).

you know... without poking fun at this or getting into the scoreboard, etc... i would just like to point out that the 1.2 years i spent on the top of the board as Conqueror were very difficult for me... every game was just blown out of proportion, i chose my opponents like i was vetting a CEO for a major corporation... hell, i would drop games if a rank joined that i knew could cost me my Conqueror throne if things went the wrong way... i had long bouts of irritable bowel syndrome and ulcers from the stress... my hair fell out... i lost over 65lbs... i was a nervous wreck... my personal life fell to shambles, i was passed up for a promotion... i lost most of my friends and alienated my family... i'm sorry, but the sheer amount of WORK it takes to get to the top spot is nothing like what you must endure to stay there... my life was a living hell, i would wake to check on turns, moves, invites, pm's, clan games, etc... then, one day... i discovered having sex with women and CC just didn't matter that much to me... i let it all go... i let go of the fear... the angst... the pressure... the stress... and now, i enjoy CC so much more... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

trust me guys... get on it...

by **WingCmdr Ginkapo** on Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:11 pm

How about best of three games, winner takes points with one guarenteed first turn.

Each individual game of 1v1 is basically just a crack shoot for 1st place, a set of three plus rewards the better player. But the point system isnt designed to support this. Beat a high ranker twice and you deserve to take their points away. Beat a low ranker twice and you deserve not to have your points taken away.

by **ViperOverLord** on Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:41 pm

Donelladan wrote:
This has been suggested plenty of times. The problem is we have too many apologists who think it's perfectly natural for the best players to be dormant and not play one another. It's not. It's terrible.

Which is... not the case.
"best players" play against other best players.
I mean maybe some top 100's player are inactive, but many do play games. I am in many 3k+ game, so it's only top players and we are definitely playing one another.
I didn't get your point here sorry.

There's a private network for multiplayer games for generals. That is not at all the same thing as generals openly starting 1v1 games and playing qualified takers.

by **Donelladan** on Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:49 am

This is silly.

Why on earth should top 100's player play 1vs1 ?
Especially since you seems to say the top 100's players isn't a real top 100 because they don't play 1vs1. But 1vs1 is 90% luck 10% skill, 1vs1 doesn't mean anything.
I play open multiplayers games, in which any opponents can come and try to take my points, at least multiplayers game involve skills.

Even if top players are map specialists, do you understand that against you, 2477 pts, so quite high, I need to win 80% of the games to win points ? You really need to be good at what you do to win 80% games against a major, because majors are skilled players. So top 100's players, are good players. There might be some that climb up by selecting opponents, I don't know, but the majority of the top players are very good. Well, ofc, again, they don't play tons of 1vs1 but 1vs1 are a shitty setting.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:19 am

This was posted by VOL, why does anyone expect it to make sense?

by **KoolBak** on Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:50 am

You can all thank ME for starting the heinous two player game :lol:

Bugged the crap outta Lack and he made me make a real "suggestion", and after a buncha BS, it exists ;o)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=2158&hilit=1+vs+1+games

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:06 pm

KoolBak wrote:You can all thank ME for starting the heinous two player game Bugged the crap outta Lack and he made me make a real "suggestion", and after a buncha BS, it exists ;o)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=2158&hilit=1+vs+1+games

WOW. Thank you KoolBak! I had no idea that you were the granddaddy of 1v1 games.

When I first joined CC, I hated 1v1 games, but over time they've grown on me, and now I love them.

However, it's really cool to see this thread and see how far CC has come.

qeee1 wrote:2 player games bore me... I'd rather see 8 player games...

Done

Augusta wrote:what would really be fun would be to have a really, really large map
(like that world map someone once suggested)
and 4 triple teams...

Done

jay_a2j wrote:Next they will want single player games with computer opponents.

Done

vtmarik wrote:You know, if I wasn't certain that it would add far too much code to the site, I'd suggest an AI opponent for the 2-player games for the lonely (like max).
Want to fill that last spot in your games, but don't want to wait for a jerk who deadbeats? Replace him with the new RiskBot 5000, who will pwn you mightily until your sobbing and sleeping in your own sock drawer out of fear that he will eat you.

Not quite done, but getting there.

Archive prowling is great fun! Thanks, KoolBak.

by **ViperOverLord** on Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:54 am

Donelladan wrote:This is silly.

Why on earth should top 100's player play 1vs1 ?
Especially since you seems to say the top 100's players isn't a real top 100 because they don't play 1vs1.

You twisted something up.

Top 100's don't play 1v1 cos their rank will plummet. Point mins for opponents erases that reality and opens the door for consistent 1v1 games among high rankers.

by **Donelladan** on Fri Sep 25, 2015 1:52 am

´

ViperOverLord wrote:Top 100's don't play 1v1 cos their rank will plummet.

If top 100's were playing 1vs1 their rank would plummet. True. But to say it's the reason why they don't play 1vs1 is just an assumption.

I have been a major for years before being a general. When I was a major I wasn't playing much more 1vs1 game than now. As I said before, I find 1vs1 isn't that fun.
The only reasons why I play 1vs1 are tournaments and speed games. Tournaments because I have no choice, speed game because I want them to be fast and filled fast.
Otherwise I never join 1vs1 because, imo, 1vs1 sucks. Nothing do to with my points for that.

Points restriction wouldn't change my opinion on the 1vs1.
But I would like to have free points speed games that's for sure my rank would be more stable

Point mins for opponents erases that reality and opens the door for consistent 1v1 games among high rankers.

I played and I am playing other general/brig in private game, enter through PW or invitation. So we alread have that point minimum in place. I have never been invited to a 1vs1, I have been invited to many poly and multiplayers games.

Now you are still probably right, if we had a point minimum for joining a game, some high rank may open 1vs1. But I don't think the change would be dramatically different, the one I know would definitely keep playing poly/team/multiplayer games and not 1vs1, because, again, 1vs1 is mainly luck.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:54 am

ViperOverLord wrote:
Donelladan wrote:This is silly.

Why on earth should top 100's player play 1vs1 ?
Especially since you seems to say the top 100's players isn't a real top 100 because they don't play 1vs1.

You twisted something up.

Top 100's don't play 1v1 cos their rank will plummet. Point mins for opponents erases that reality and opens the door for consistent 1v1 games among high rankers.

You should do your research before spewing bollocks.

Players like timmydaconquerer have played 1v1 against high ranking opponents for a long time, albeit more recently started playing poly. Then there is Domicas who exclusively plays 1v1 games. Try harder mate.

by **KoolBak** on Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:35 am

Yeah, Duk....I noticed that as well.....nicely stated ;o)

by **Paddy The Cat** on Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:44 am

KoolBak wrote:You can all thank ME for starting the heinous two player game Bugged the crap outta Lack and he made me make a real "suggestion", and after a buncha BS, it exists ;o)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=2158&hilit=1+vs+1+games

Well if you want some funny stuff read through that thread again! After the suggestion was posted, some people say things like: