berickf wrote:

t the board should perhaps only be allowed unranked games after x number of board plays to create a baseline rank while experience between players is most even. 

This is a suggestion in the right direction, but it is convoluted.  Why not just have the option of not playing Ranked games?

M57 wrote:

Unranked Games is what I'm interested in.

And I'm interested in invitations for ranked games... Hence why I divided my response into two posts up there.  One for the topic of invitations and the other for the topic of unranked games.  Luckily, the op has nothing to do with either, so, we can derail the thread in all sorts of marvelous directions ;-)

M57 wrote:

I suppose we could wait for more berickf's to do all that work and hope that the boards they choose are the ones we want to play, but..

Oooohhhhhh, you might be in luck on this one.  My goal to have mastered Waterloo by now was put behind schedule by a bout of bad health, but, I'm feeling better again and once I get back onto learning and feel dominant on that board I will launch some tournaments on that one for you, and I'll do all the invites!!!!

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

I suppose we could wait for more berickf's to do all that work and hope that the boards they choose are the ones we want to play, but..

Oooohhhhhh, you might be in luck on this one.  My goal to have mastered Waterloo by now was put behind schedule by a bout of bad health, but, I'm feeling better again and once I get back onto learning and feel dominant on that board I will launch some tournaments on that one for you, and I'll do all the invites!!!!

I'll join that one!  Look out for korrun and IRsmart - two very strong players who are relatively new to the board.

I have played many games recently with berickf and have continuously gotten my butt kicked but I will keep trying. Berickf is almost unbeatable on the Bladensburg and Iwo Jima boards which adds to the incentive of wanting to beat him. I have come close on the Iwo Jima board but not on the Bladensburg board. He is an extremely skilled player who also shows prolonged streaks of luck. He has won 3 months in a row pretty much by sticking to the Iwo Jima, Bladensburg and Antastic boards. I won 1 Antastic tournament by going 19-0. Of course berickf went 18-1.

Let's give berickf his due. He has helped me (and Vyro who has beaten him) with great guidance on the Bladensburg board. Let him stand on top of the mountain. If you don't like it then go and try to knock him off. Everyone else has taken advantage of the system in attaining easy CP points on little played boards. Berickf is clearly the best tournament player. Why is he not a 5 Star General?

The time has come to fully implement the 4 (or 5) rank system fully. To me personally the CP points have little value. I assume that if berickf wanted to he could accumulate piles of CP points.  

Mad Bomber wrote: I'd love to see Berickf in a big game like speakeasy or eve universe......but his love for the GR will not allow this....I doubt he would risk losing 60-80 pts in one game. If it's so easy why are so few people under 100 CP's? Winning 5 out of 6 on a board with 8 players is not easy......to me...two player games are boring.....

"his love for the GR will not allow this"... Stop... Not keen on words being put in my mouth so let me put in my .02.  My first climb up the GR ranks had absolutely nothing to do with 1v1's.  It was done primarily on BIG Civil War games with a little Hordes of Africa, Pangea, Micro Mission and a few other games thrown in, all of which were between 5 and 16 players, all the way up to a GR of 3259.  You can look at my ranking history to confirm this.

I then tried to learn invention and lost a chunk of GR change with some invention losses.  Love invention though Ozy, thanks!  Though, can you make an original second edition scenario before you tweaked the satellites?  I also became less keen on CW because at that point I was the #1 ranked player on that board with those 20 CP, but that seemed to attract me some undue attention at that point - I should go back now that I have been knocked down a couple spots in my absence!  I think that if you keep switching up boards, however, it might keep off some of this undue attention and get a good player a lot of CP in the process.  Especially if a board is more obscure yet the host has studied it and is more prepared then their opposition.  Something you don't get a lot of leeway with when hosting big player number game of CW, CC or antastic.  Most players know those ones!  I admit, however, I'm not really into playing so many obscure boards and prefer the 'popular' ones or at least one's I decide to specialize on, so, that's my weakness as far as gathering CP goes.  Lack of interest in playing so many different boards.  I respect your drive to do so though Mad Bomber, kudos!

Anyway, my recent 'love' for one-versus-one has a lot more to do with my tournament rank then my GR, though, I did decide to chase down the CP for those boards as well, since I could, which resulted in a bit of a GR boost and I am now thinking that I might be able to chase down falker1976, but, that was not what I originally set out to do.  My original focus was to be #1 in tournaments, by a landslide.

If I wanted to 'homework' my way through WarGear and play a greater diversity of the more obscure boards, I'm pretty sure I could master many of them to a pretty high level and climb significantly up the CP ranks, but, I just can't find the eagerness to do that. I get more satisfaction out of my GR scores anyway since the CP game is such an headache to play! (for me)

To me, 1v1's are clearly not boring and on the right board can be the purest test of skill you can find in what is otherwise a luck based, toss of the dice, kind of game.  Success in this vein can also parlay into other accolades that I had not even previously considered, like massive winning and elimination streaks!

Anyway, to each their own, I guess, but, saying "his love for GR will not allow this" is erred by the fact that I was playing big player games in my first climb up the GR rank and it was in-fact when I lost my first game after hitting 3259 I thought my tournament success on antastic could be a route back to the top till Snake Eyes beat me in the first and only 1v1 antastic game that I launched while thinking in that vein.  At which point I gave up on that idea and went back to the drawing board.  It did not look like 1v1's was a good way to get GR at that point because antastic is unpredictable and more prone to luck then Iwo or BoB.

Since you brought up 8 player games... You are 37/112 (33%) and I am 5/15 (33%), so, no difference percentage wise.  Just a difference in preference!  Our h ratings are pretty similar too, so, it all averages out in the mix, I guess?

Thanks for the challenge though Mad Bomber.  Maybe I'll find a way to clear 100 CP that's in my wheelhouse? ;-)

Mad Bomber wrote: Your the man. Your a stronger player than I and your communication skills are amazing. I hope to see you in a few "odd ball" maps. FYI.....I rarely read the rules of a board and do very little homework. I apologize if I offended u in any way....I think I just spouted off after a beer or two, without even checking your stats.

No offense my friend, just straightening out the 1v1's versus large player board games, and my GR record, nothing more then that!  For tournaments, to get a lot of tourney GR, it's best to make round-robin and to get enough players in as short a time as possible, 1v1 is the way to go. So, my 1v1 craze of late has much to do with that as well as the fact that I decided to specialize on Korrun's and Ozy's recent battlefield boards, and I love them, they're a lot of fun!!!  But, I do have a history of playing large player games as well!  I love epic battle boards just as much as I love a great dueling board!

You are an amazing player and we both have our strengths as players on this marvelous site!  I'm sure we both highlight many player's top ten list of who they hate to face!

Thanks for the feedback on your preparation style, it's good to know your weaknesses ;-)

Mad Bomber wrote: Wait....I thought I was number one in tournament rankings with 44 titles.........:)

You better keep piling those up then if you want to stay ahead, because I'm on my way up when it comes to those too!

Babbalouie wrote:

He has helped me (and Vyro who has beaten him) with great guidance on the Bladensburg board.

Amongst others.  I have tried to help wherever I can to help others to understand BoB and Iwo so these two excellent boards can stand the test of time and continue to be popular down the road.

I like the competiveness. Both berickf and Mad Bomber are great players and should both be 5 Star Generals in their particular areas of expertise. Again, this is a great push to finally implement the 4 (or 5) rank system permanently. Is anyone capable of achieving the 5 Star General rank in 2 or 3 or 4 different areas? Let's get this ranking system permanently implemented to increase competition and give new recruits a better chance to move up their ranks in the area (or areas) they choose.      

berickf wrote:

Mad Bomber wrote: Wait....I thought I was number one in tournament rankings with 44 titles.........:)

You better keep piling those up then if you want to stay ahead, because I'm on my way up when it comes to those too!

objects in mirror are closer than they appear

Mad Bomber wrote: Keep racking up wins on the same 4 boards...against newbs.....that u friend and invite to your tournaments......SOS anyone?

Who likes playing newbs?  More people have played those boards then most of the ones you play on...

In fact... Go to boards page -> sort by popularity.  You'll see that three of those boards are in the top five in popularity.  Do you really think that such popular boards are ONLY played by newbs?  Or, to rephrase, do you think that boards can be played so much yet the players playing them are perpetual newbs... Why don't you join some of those tournaments and show us how a pro does it!  In my tournaments I'm sure you'll mop up against newbs the likes of Cona Chris, Vyro, Bex Valeur, Foot Fungus, Timmy888, Babbalouie, Nekon, KillDawg, Korrun, Ozyman, Chele Nica, Snake Eyes, YuriZ, Gamester, fiverocketcars, IRsmart, BIg Skin, Troysbucket, Shelbo, Andernut... amongst others!  I find my games against them to be challenging, to say the least, so I'd love to see you tear up my tournaments... against newbs.  I'm actually surprised you wrote that.  It's unbecoming of a player of your stature and experience.

Many of the boards you mention are are 'popular' because they are highly reviewed, but they are niche boards nonetheless.  A number of my boards certainly fall into that category. Also, they are 'popular' in part because I ask the best players to play them and I solicit reviews from those players specifically.  Now I won't mention the "U" word so the thread doesn't get hijacked, but these are boards that are prone to easy points against newbies for obvious reasons.  I'm not saying that you, @berickf, are consciously taking advantage of that paradigm.  I think there's no way around it.  Games against newbs are ranked - plain and simple - and there's no way they can win against top  or even strong players on the 2v2 boards that are starting to populate the site.

M57 wrote:

Many of the boards you mention are are 'popular' because they are highly reviewed, but they are niche boards nonetheless.  A number of my boards certainly fall into that category. Also, they are 'popular' in part because I ask the best players to play them and I solicit reviews from those players specifically.  Now I won't mention the "U" word so the thread doesn't get hijacked, but these are boards that are prone to easy points against newbies for obvious reasons.  I'm not saying that you, @berickf, are consciously taking advantage of that paradigm.  I think there's no way around it.  Games against newbs are ranked - plain and simple - and there's no way they can win against top  or even strong players on the 2v2 boards that are starting to populate the site.

There does not seem to be a correlation between a board being ranked in top popularity compared to its review.  I think popularity is directly tied to what is being played a lot most recently?  So, I don't think soliciting reviews has anything to do with how a board is viewed by popularity...  Just click on each of the most popular boards and you'll see that they are not ranked 'popular' inline with the rating score (reviews).  It's just a 'what's being played most these days' way to sort the boards, I think?  What is being played most suggests general whereas niche suggests specialization.  So, popularity sorted by most played sort of contradicts the suggestion of it currently being a niche... Unless you are suggesting that general is multi player games and the niche, when it comes to how those boards is played, is that they are 1v1 boards... But, I'm not sure if that is true either?  It seems like many 1v1 are constantly being launched and fill quickly... Of course, however, it is easier to consistently win games on balanced 1v1 boards... Because that is the point of a dueling boards. 

More skilled players are supposed to win more consistently then less skilled players.  A dueling board is supposed to try and equalize the sides so that skill, not newbiness, reigns supreme.  So, such boards have more to do with skill then with one's level of 'newbieness'.  Everyone starts as a newb but some are instantly successful and others will never be that successful even after their level of newbiness has long gone the way of the dodo.  How many games of leeway does one get to still be considered a 'newb' and get a free pass at losing anyways?  Why do some players come along and find instant success (because they are skill players) and then are no longer considered newbs instantly that their skill becomes apparent?  If I play a guy for the 10th time and beat him ten times, is he still a newb after so many games played just because they have lost all their games to me just so we can say I'm beating newbs?  If that same player has gone 45 of 50 in every other game they have played on that board, not against me, and has an overall record of 45 of 60... Seriously, is that player a newb?   It seems unfair to me that the measure of being a newb seems to be 'who they lose to' rather then based on their actual experience on a board.

I stand corrected. I was mistaking rank by 'popularity' for 'rating'.

Mad Bomber wrote: Yeah....I've been drinking again......sorry Berickf......I must be jealous of your dominance....

You should not be jealous.  CP is the standard bearer for rank on this site and in that you are the Mad King!  Just enjoy another one and relax knowing that your title is secure and no kingslayer is in sight!  I'm still coming for the title of tournament wins though ;-)

Yikes... perpetual newb... 

There is only one solution: ja'chug

I suggest a series of 8 matches - 4 duels chosen by each competitor - none of the rounds may be the same as a previous - scoring and victory is decided by the community. 

It's the only way.

ratsy wrote:

I suggest a series of 8 matches - 4 duels chosen by each competitor - none of the rounds may be the same as a previous - scoring and victory is decided by the community. 

It's the only way.

Ohhhh! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

Mad Bomber wrote: Yeah....I've been drinking again......sorry Berickf......I must be jealous of your dominance....

Damn, you must drink a lot my friend... This message is like déjà vu!