Top 50 players who were willing to rise to a challenge

[Dukasaur]

So basically by your own admission, you're not good enough to play anything other than 1 v 1 on a map with settings that you've determined to be a coin flip?

That's mostly true. Not completely, but mostly.

I've never imagined myself to be a great player, never claimed to be. I realize I'm slightly above average on my good days, and well below average on my bad days.

I do have trouble maintaining focus. Nowadays I suppose you'd call it ADHD, but in my day we didn't get fancy labels. I was just called an inattentive pupil, and I got the strap more than almost anyone else in my school. But it's true that if a problem takes too long to solve, I tend to get distracted and think about something else. So quick turns on small maps (where I can manage to move before I get distracted) are my preference, and even then I sometimes do something stupid. Not a great player by any means, but I do sometimes have good days.

Why would anyone want to do that? If it's 50/50, then it's purely a lucked based game you'd like highly skilled players to accept an invite to?

That whole "purely luck based" claim deserves some attention. CC is a dice game, and as such it's always primarily a luck based game. Moron or genius, you can always get killed by the dice. I reject the received wisdom around here that "no spoils" is less luck based than games with spoils. Games with cards open another dimension of luck. With a shitty drop and mediocre dice you're usually dead without cards, whereas sometimes a lucky card can open an avenue to a comeback. You can still get screwed, but at least you have a glimmer of hope. Is it really more lucky to win with a timely rainbow than to win because your opponent just rolled ten ones in a row?

And if they don't, then they are somehow expected to be ashamed or something? What is this?

No, that's the funny part. I never expected anyone to be ashamed. Look back at my original post. Right from the beginning I said "I totally get that the scoring system makes it unappetizing for high-ranked players to play low-ranked players on (relatively) even turf." I'm completely sympathetic to anyone who has worked hard for their points to be loath to risk them on a lark. I was just curious how many would. Maybe it's just a reflection of our blaming-and-shaming society that people put in that interpretation when I said nothing of the kind.

[MichelSableheart]

That whole "purely luck based" claim deserves some attention. CC is a dice game, and as such it's always primarily a luck based game. Moron or genius, you can always get killed by the dice. I reject the received wisdom around here that "no spoils" is less luck based than games with spoils. Games with cards open another dimension of luck. With a shitty drop and mediocre dice you're usually dead without cards, whereas sometimes a lucky card can open an avenue to a comeback. You can still get screwed, but at least you have a glimmer of hope. Is it really more lucky to win with a timely rainbow than to win because your opponent just rolled ten ones in a row?

I would choose the wording of that first sentence slightly differently: "CC is a dice game, and as such there is always some amount of luck involved". The exact amount of luck involved changes with the settings, though. In 1v1 flat rate, there's luck in the drop, luck in the spoils, and luck in the dice. Make it no spoils, and the luck in the spoils disappears. Make it poly 3, and the luck of the drop gets greatly reduced, because there's less chance someone starts with a bonus. Increase the size of the map, and the game will last longer, causing more die rolls, giving them more opportunity to average out.

This is particularly interesting when you also compare the opportunity for skill to make a difference.

[iAmCaffeine]

stop you're confusing him

[loutil]

A good move from the CC Gods would be to create a setting where games could be played either for no points or for an agreed upon number of points. This would encourage a lot more action between players of different ranks. The current point system is just to unbalanced. If I play a major, at 2000 points, a 10 game set and win 7 out of 10 I will lose a significant amount of points. On my best map with my best settings, it would be hard to beat a major 7 out of 10. Dice and drop, alone, would cost me 2-3 games.

[MichelSableheart]

A good move from the CC Gods would be to create a setting where games could be played either for no points or for an agreed upon number of points. This would encourage a lot more action between players of different ranks. The current point system is just to unbalanced. If I play a major, at 2000 points, a 10 game set and win 7 out of 10 I will lose a significant amount of points. On my best map with my best settings, it would be hard to beat a major 7 out of 10. Dice and drop, alone, would cost me 2-3 games.

Which means your score is where it should be. If you have to win 7 out of 10 to maintain score, and winning 7 out of 10 is hard but not impossible, your score relative to that major is a very accurate approximation of your win chances, exactly as the system is designed to do.

[Extreme Ways]

A good move from the CC Gods would be to create a setting where games could be played either for no points or for an agreed upon number of points. This would encourage a lot more action between players of different ranks. The current point system is just to unbalanced. If I play a major, at 2000 points, a 10 game set and win 7 out of 10 I will lose a significant amount of points. On my best map with my best settings, it would be hard to beat a major 7 out of 10. Dice and drop, alone, would cost me 2-3 games.

Which means your score is where it should be. If you have to win 7 out of 10 to maintain score, and winning 7 out of 10 is hard but not impossible, your score relative to that major is a very accurate approximation of your win chances, exactly as the system is designed to do.

Well, depends on what settings you play

[Shannon Apple]

A good move from the CC Gods would be to create a setting where games could be played either for no points or for an agreed upon number of points. This would encourage a lot more action between players of different ranks. The current point system is just to unbalanced. If I play a major, at 2000 points, a 10 game set and win 7 out of 10 I will lose a significant amount of points. On my best map with my best settings, it would be hard to beat a major 7 out of 10. Dice and drop, alone, would cost me 2-3 games.

Which means your score is where it should be. If you have to win 7 out of 10 to maintain score, and winning 7 out of 10 is hard but not impossible, your score relative to that major is a very accurate approximation of your win chances, exactly as the system is designed to do.

Meh, unless you're our lovely conquerer, then you can just foe everyone who can beat you (accuse them of having dice luck) and lose very few games by playing against only green people.

And, from experience, being a major actually doesn't make someone a lesser player than a general. There are a few absolute sharks out there. My clan has a few. They play too many games and crazy settings, so their rank doesn't go very high. But if they were set up to play a General in a 10 game match, they'd have a 50/50 chance of beating him because of their true skill level when taking the game more seriously.

[loutil]

A good move from the CC Gods would be to create a setting where games could be played either for no points or for an agreed upon number of points. This would encourage a lot more action between players of different ranks. The current point system is just to unbalanced. If I play a major, at 2000 points, a 10 game set and win 7 out of 10 I will lose a significant amount of points. On my best map with my best settings, it would be hard to beat a major 7 out of 10. Dice and drop, alone, would cost me 2-3 games.

Which means your score is where it should be. If you have to win 7 out of 10 to maintain score, and winning 7 out of 10 is hard but not impossible, your score relative to that major is a very accurate approximation of your win chances, exactly as the system is designed to do.

You need to reread what I said:

If I play a major, at 2000 points, a 10 game set and win 7 out of 10 I will lose a significant amount of points.

So, your entire premise is false. Further, it is not reasonable to beat a decent player 7 out of 10. 60-65% is probably the more realistic number and it would be much lower on maps that are more drop or turn order centric.

[MichelSableheart]

Let me make my premise more explicit then:

the current point system is an ELO like system, which uses the relative scores of the participants at the beginning of a game to determine an estimated chance each participant has of winning, creates a new estimation based on the results of the game, and alters the scores to reflect that new estimation.

Any claim that the scoring system is "unbalanced" because it loses you points when you don't maintain the winrate it expects (regardless of if that expected winrate is 7 out of 10, as I originally thought, or even higher) feels ridiculous, as that is the system doing exactly what it is designed to do.

---
Now admittedly, the estimation of win chance will be based on what you usually play. If you only play a specific map against opponents who don't know it, your score will reflect your winchance on that map against those opponents. If you play on a wide variety of maps and settings, your score will reflect your winchance on the entire spectrum of settings you play, and therefore probably underestimate you on your best settings.

[Extreme Ways]

Let me make my premise more explicit then:

the current point system is an ELO like system, which uses the relative scores of the participants at the beginning of a game to determine an estimated chance each participant has of winning, creates a new estimation based on the results of the game, and alters the scores to reflect that new estimation.

Any claim that the scoring system is "unbalanced" because it loses you points when you don't maintain the winrate it expects (regardless of if that expected winrate is 7 out of 10, as I originally thought, or even higher) feels ridiculous, as that is the system doing exactly what it is designed to do.

---
Now admittedly, the estimation of win chance will be based on what you usually play. If you only play a specific map against opponents who don't know it, your score will reflect your winchance on that map against those opponents. If you play on a wide variety of maps and settings, your score will reflect your winchance on the entire spectrum of settings you play, and therefore probably underestimate you on your best settings.

The last paragraph is why the scoring system - and people using score as an estimation of skill - is flawed. Shannon is correct, there are absolutely sub-2500 players around that are able to go toe to toe with plenty generals. This paragraph imo also invalidates the previous paragraph, a claim that the scoring system is unbalanced isn't ridiculous: the scoring system is just unable to properly assess players across a multitude of maps and settings.

Now I'm not saying I have answers, developing a sound scoring system with the amount of players on this site is at the least nigh impossible. But saying that it's ridiculous to call the scoring system unbalanced is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

PS: the scoring system only takes into account the players' scores when the game ends, not when the game starts. This is another thing that is ripe for abuse: players have shown that they can run hundreds games at once, slowplay the wins and fastplay the losses, and gain a tremendous amount of points that way,

[Extreme Ways]

PPS: that is also abusable if the system only took into account starting scores. Just drop your score, and then create hundreds of games on your favourite and best settings.

[MichelSableheart]

Let me make my premise more explicit then:

the current point system is an ELO like system, which uses the relative scores of the participants at the beginning of a game to determine an estimated chance each participant has of winning, creates a new estimation based on the results of the game, and alters the scores to reflect that new estimation.

Any claim that the scoring system is "unbalanced" because it loses you points when you don't maintain the winrate it expects (regardless of if that expected winrate is 7 out of 10, as I originally thought, or even higher) feels ridiculous, as that is the system doing exactly what it is designed to do.

---
Now admittedly, the estimation of win chance will be based on what you usually play. If you only play a specific map against opponents who don't know it, your score will reflect your winchance on that map against those opponents. If you play on a wide variety of maps and settings, your score will reflect your winchance on the entire spectrum of settings you play, and therefore probably underestimate you on your best settings.

The last paragraph is why the scoring system - and people using score as an estimation of skill - is flawed. Shannon is correct, there are absolutely sub-2500 players around that are able to go toe to toe with plenty generals. This paragraph imo also invalidates the previous paragraph, a claim that the scoring system is unbalanced isn't ridiculous: the scoring system is just unable to properly assess players across a multitude of maps and settings.

Now I'm not saying I have answers, developing a sound scoring system with the amount of players on this site is at the least nigh impossible. But saying that it's ridiculous to call the scoring system unbalanced is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

PS: the scoring system only takes into account the players' scores when the game ends, not when the game starts. This is another thing that is ripe for abuse: players have shown that they can run hundreds games at once, slowplay the wins and fastplay the losses, and gain a tremendous amount of points that way,

(emphasis mine)

It measures different things for different players, so using it as an estimation of skill only works in a very general sense, agreed.

However, my claim was far more specific then you seem to assume. There are valid arguments to be made for why the scoring system is unbalanced. "I need to maintain a very high winrate to maintain my score" isn't one of them.

[loutil]

However, my claim was far more specific then you seem to assume. There are valid arguments to be made for why the scoring system is unbalanced. "I need to maintain a very high winrate to maintain my score" isn't one of them.

If you read the context of my original post, you will get a different argument then the one you post above. My predicate was about getting higher ranked players to play more games with lower ranked players. In that setting, the scoring system is unbalanced as higher ranked players cannot win at a high enough rate to justify playing those games. Specifically, for me, anyone ranked lieutenant or lower is unbalanced against almost any win expectancy. There are a few players who have created an expertise, on very complicated and large maps, who can win at 90%+ rates and therefor effectively play lower ranked players. Narutoserigala on Das Schloss is an example of that. My point, for the betterment of this site, is to create incentive for more higher ranked players to play lower ranked players.
Another way this imbalance plays out is multi player standard games. I refuse to play them as often the lower ranked players band together to target the highest ranked player in the game as the point system rewards them for this tactic.

[MichelSableheart]

However, my claim was far more specific then you seem to assume. There are valid arguments to be made for why the scoring system is unbalanced. "I need to maintain a very high winrate to maintain my score" isn't one of them.

If you read the context of my original post, you will get a different argument then the one you post above. My predicate was about getting higher ranked players to play more games with lower ranked players. In that setting, the scoring system is unbalanced as higher ranked players cannot win at a high enough rate to justify playing those games. Specifically, for me, anyone ranked lieutenant or lower is unbalanced against almost any win expectancy. There are a few players who have created an expertise, on very complicated and large maps, who can win at 90%+ rates and therefor effectively play lower ranked players. Narutoserigala on Das Schloss is an example of that. My point, for the betterment of this site, is to create incentive for more higher ranked players to play lower ranked players.
Another way this imbalance plays out is multi player standard games. I refuse to play them as often the lower ranked players band together to target the highest ranked player in the game as the point system rewards them for this tactic.

Then I must offer my apologies, as I did indeed misread your post.

[iAmCaffeine]

lets make everyone's rank and score hidden

[Shannon Apple]

Another way this imbalance plays out is multi player standard games. I refuse to play them as often the lower ranked players band together to target the highest ranked player in the game as the point system rewards them for this tactic.

I stopped playing public ones as soon as I got to the rank of major because of this exact thing. There were a few players who would target any major or colonel in the game. Made me mad because 9 times out of 10, they weakened themselves while weakening me.

There was a private list going around for private standard, classic escalating, for Majors and above where people just played the damn game without pulling that nonsense... but that's a long time ago. I've been away from the site a lot over the past number of years, so kinda lost track of these things and whether people still set up private games in this way.

[Extreme Ways]

Another way this imbalance plays out is multi player standard games. I refuse to play them as often the lower ranked players band together to target the highest ranked player in the game as the point system rewards them for this tactic.

I stopped playing public ones as soon as I got to the rank of major because of this exact thing. There were a few players who would target any major or colonel in the game. Made me mad because 9 times out of 10, they weakened themselves while weakening me.

There was a private list going around for private standard, classic escalating, for Majors and above where people just played the damn game without pulling that nonsense... but that's a long time ago. I've been away from the site a lot over the past number of years, so kinda lost track of these things and whether people still set up private games in this way.

There's privates for 3000+ or something at least. So long as your score doesnt fluctuate too much and you're a decent player, I think most could just ask for an invite. There's also the callouts threads with their std passwords... but those arent active.