Scaldis, you are quite wrong. Check this, as I type this, I'm comparing my stats n' score with the #3 ranked guy overall in this game

Username: montecarlo

http://aplayr.com/user/montecarlo/

My stats:

1st: 20%
2nd: 17%
3rd: 12%

TOTAL: 49%
Current Score: 1,730

His Stats:

1st 19%
2nd 14%
3rd 18%

TOTAL: 51%
Current Score: 1,720

Furthermore, you try to claim that my scores aren't "impressive" because my 4th and 5th place finishes are a higher percentage than my 3rd place finishes.

Are you freaking serious? You should work for the media with the horsecrap you're pulling out of your butt, trying to skew things.

My 3rd place are 12% compared to 4th and 5th which each are 13%. Are you seriously trying to discredit me over a 1% difference???

To be fair, it is a lot more impressive to exceed 50% for 1-2-3 at the 2000 tables (like montecarlo) than at the 1500 tables.

Let me make this simple. You probably aren't nearly as good as you think you are. If you were, you wouldn't have any trouble moving up to the 1800's table and beyond. I'm not very good - maybe a little above the average player at the 1500 tables - and if I can get over 1800 playing exclusively at the no limit tables against players with scores under 1400, then it can't be that hard for someone with decent skill.

Signed,
Mediocre at best, and loving it!

grandgnu,

montecarlo is not a good example to use if you are comparing elo scores, because he has had a recent plunge in his elo score, though he retains his high standings in the top 25 because of his rank-from-rating never decreases. You can have big swings in your elo without it affecting your percentages much if you have played a lot of games.

grandgnu:

Also, if you want to compare yourself with montecarlo, it would be better for you to compare your current (first) month of play with montecarlo's first month of play, which was March.

*sigh* Now I'm going all Helmuth on you guys. If it weren't for luck, I'd win everyone?

Look, I'm not saying I'm the best player out there, I know I'm not. But I'm an extremely strong player and certainly good enough to be in the 1800 tables.

But if I can only win 6 points for a 2nd place finish but lose 21 points for a 5th place, it's extremely difficult to clear that hurdle.

It also doesn't help that lately I've been acting last or next to last in a lot of my games, and I wind up with only 2-3 territories left by the time other players have swept through my starting lands (or my territories are spread out in all four corners of the game board with no hope of connecting)

I know, that happens to others as well. I also lost three in a row when I had a 2 dice advantage early in a recent round, so that screwed me. And I lost 8 vs 4, 6 vs 3 and 5 vs 2.

I'm sure others have suffered some brutal beats, I've seen them as well. I just think you're discounting my skill level based on the score instead of looking at the rank.

I would put money on it that if I sit at a table with someone who's got a score of 1850 but a rank of 2,600 and there's another guy there with a score of 1680 but his rank is 206th the guy who's 206th is the better player overall.

I would take that bet. The guy with the 1850 score may have only played a few games in the current month, so his rank may be low. And the guy who is 206th may be an ok player who just plays a whole lot of games.

One last thing. You said "But I'm an extremely strong player and certainly good enough to be in the 1800 tables." -- Apparently not, since you aren't playing there. There are plenty of players who get there, so they must be doing something that you aren't.

I don't know how I can better explain it to you?

I've been up as high as 1942 before. I've only been playing for a month.

Again, the problem here is a huge ridiculoulness in how the scores are calculated in the end.

If I'm at 1780, I HAVE to come in 1st place to get past the 1800 mark in my next match.

If I happen to come in 2nd, I may only get 6-12 points, which means I have to play yet another round.

The problem arises when I'm at 1780 and I come in 5th and lose 21 points. So now I'm down to 1759, which means I can't even win 1st and move up to the 1800's.

So now I'm at 1759, and maybe I get 2nd my next round, yippee, another 6 points, I'm back to 1765!

And maybe I get another 2nd place the round after that for maybe 10 points this time, hooray, I'm at 1775!

Oh wait, my next round I get smacked with 6th place. -42 points. Welcome back to 1733.

If the points weren't so warped it wouldn't be an issue. But I don't have all day to sit around and wait for a 1500 table to magically fill with 1700+ players.

I'm going to wind up sitting with someone who's got 1530, and 1601, etc. And I'm hugely penalized in how many points I can win compared with how many I can lose.

I'm happy to say I've only seen one instance of outright cheating so far. Guy was in the 1700's and playing a 1500 table. He created a 1500 account to play at the table with him, then used both accounts to dominate. In the end it was me fighting his main account and cut-off from the 1st place 1500 account up north. The 1500 account just kept skipping it's turn and had +32 for quite some time. It's only option was to go south through this other guys land, but he never did.

He wasn't listed as "away", and there was never any discussion in the chat box about a truce.

When I called this guy on it he typed "creep" in the chat box with his 1700 account, the 1500 account said nothing.

This month with the 300 point gap has definitely turned out to be an interesting experiment.

Essentially the rank should work without table limits. You would just play any ranked player and with enough games your rating would indicate your true ranking. The table limits provide a crutch, or a ladder that allows you to artificially increase your rating.

With that said, in July I will have add 1600 tables.

dude. way to compare yourself to someone who is tanking their account. next time before you use me as a reference, please ask my permission. because i totally disagree with you. if you are good at this game, you will get to the 2000+ tables, no question.

just look at kwizatz as an example. every month that dude gets to the top 25 (able to maintain high elo), then tanks his account to the 1300s on purpose, then works his way back to 2000+ tables. according to your logic, that must mean that he is superlucky... every month consistently. which is not luck. that is called skill.

in conclusion, if you want to be good at this game, imitate kwizatz.