I know my skill is weak. I know i am unlucky. still How would address what you see in this game. I am all ears.

...Looks like dice to me... 

Bad dice at event 405, specifically, against the singleton.  Light blue was already in the lead at this point and the bad turn just exacerbated your demise.  So what else is new?  

I think a bad precedent is being set here.  The community has been super nice.  Let's not become caricatures and review every bad luck game.

A-TEAM wrote:

I know my skill is weak. I know i am unlucky. still How would address what you see in this game. I am all ears.

You are not a 'weak' player. Generally speaking, you are not unlucky. I think we have established those two things in a previous thread.  Tactically speaking, the game was pretty prescribed. The battle in Asia would be the decider of the game, the dice were not with you, and your opponent played well enough to capitalize on the situation.

M57 wrote:

A-TEAM wrote:

I know my skill is weak. I know i am unlucky. still How would address what you see in this game. I am all ears.

You are not a 'weak' player. Generally speaking, you are not unlucky. I think we have established those two things in a previous thread.  Tactically speaking, the game was pretty prescribed. The battle in Asia would be the decider of the game, the dice were not with you, and your opponent played well enough to capitalize on the situation.

+1

To add on a bit, you started making low probability attacks after you lost the battle in Asia, which spread you very thin. It probably wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference if you hadn't done that, but if your opponent started getting a series of bad rolls it could have helped turn the tide.

@Thingol

You do know that when I make a post I am not specifically asking for your opinion?

I do not know you. Absolutely you can comment if you like, and say whatever you wish, as you have demonstrated, and because the post did not say all comments welcome sans @Thingol.

So what is up? It says you have been a member since Feb 11, I did not check your profile for what year, but as you are ranked #74 I assume you are not a newbie. -My point is... you have been here for a while, i suspect with the interest you have taken in my post that you have seen everything under the sun in the forums. So clearly i have struck a nerve or maybe not, you could not just be a general in your game play but maybe you are a general in the forums too? I don't know. No matter the case, ease off man. I am still new here. How could my handful of post no matter how outlandish, naive, goading, provocative, ignorant, insulting, inflammatory, uninformed, childish, bullish, petty, and now to add long- how could the affect you to the point where you make this statement, "I think a bad precedent is being set here.  The community has been super nice.  Let's not become caricatures and review every bad luck game."

Really?? I am not certain how large the community is considering the handful of individuals that have engaged me in some fashion. Also I am not sure how you define "super-nice", and at that i don't know if i want to see regular nice or heaven forbid plain ole mean.  I did not see you as a caricature and will do my best not to moving forward.

My bottom line is please, lighten up. And oh God please do not misinterpret my levity and feel free to dish it back. I only ask that you stop sizing me down like a science professor being challenged by a first day Freshmen who wrote his first assignment on Creation.

Nonetheless, duly noted, I won't again ask for a review of unlucky dice games.

I wouldn't have made the attack at turn 230.  2v2's are low probability attacks and only should be done when desperate - which you are not at all at this point.  Esp. since you already have your card for the turn.  But you did win that one so lucky you.  

But after that you left a bunch of 1's in asia.  Leaving 1's laying around are easily taken over by your opponent.  I'd have been more conservative and tried to leave as many 2's as I could.

Then why didn't you turn in after blue took asia?  You had the cards - you needed to hit him right back.

Also - I rather enjoy reviewing other people's games so feel free to post if you think it's helpful.

A-Team - (I certainly don't speak for Thingol, but I will put in my own two cents as to what he might be referencing...)  
The x3 games that you posted are very similar.  In each game your opponent got a much better placement at game start (a nearly impossible detriment to overcome in 1v1 WGWF), you went second (which only adds to the difficulty), and you got some rough dice at inopportune moments (which put the nail in the coffin).  If you're just looking for a reviews of the games, then that's the review of all three.

However, before you recoil from Thingol's response, I propose viewing your posts from his perspective, and you might see why it could be slightly off-putting for the community:

Imagine the following:

You are a long standing member of a very welcoming and discussion-hungry community, who prides itself on enjoying the friendly competition of an online board game.  A new player joins said community, and, as always, the community very much wants to be welcoming to new players. But that new player's first introduction to the community is a rather inflammatory post (albeit certainly not intended as such, as previously stated) about this community, the website that you participate in, and specifically calls out the upper echelon of that community and accuses the website ownership of dice rigging in their favor, and at this new players expense.

How would this first post make you feel about this new player, and would it show that the player has respect for the community he is trying to become a member of?

Now the community, as a whole, bites its tongue long enough to keep from running the new player off the site for his accusation, and instead turns that discussion into an educational experience, and assuages his fears that the dice are not in fact rigged by showing that one's dice will eventually swing the other direction.  The community follows that statistical discussion up with a strong suggestion to avoid the particular games that are being chosen by this player (1v1 WGWF) because they are just about the worst games on the site to play when luck is frustrating you (specifically, because of the reasons listed above).
The player thanks the community for these suggestions and you feel like you've gained a new and valuable member.

A few days later, the same player is now posting a link/requesting review of a game that is the exact same type which the community already suggested avoiding. The player is not asking specific questions about "what should I have done once my opponent did X" or "was I not aggressive enough or too aggressive at turn X." He is only asking for a "review game X," one which has nothing to review:  most any objective viewer with a modicum of experience in Risk can see from the history that those particular games were 90% predetermined by the original placement of the board, and the remaining 10% was removed by turn 2 because of circumstantially bad dice.

The community wants to give the benefit of the doubt, so they respond with reassurance that it is unfortunate placement and bad dice that caused the demise on this particular game, and also reiterates that the particular game choice is oft susceptible to this situation so it would be in the players best interests to avoid 1v1 WGWF.

The player's follow up with new posts asking for more game reviews. 

Now I ask you: If you were in this situation, and this was your community and a new player was posting as you have posted, what information do you think the player would be requesting?  Or would it look to you, as it might to some of us, like the new player trying to bring these other games as retroactive evidence for your previously posted statement about dice rigging, one which we, as a community, have already stated we won't listen to?

You are correct, you didn't specifically request information from Thingol, nor exclude him.
Thingol isn't asking you to exclude or include him in the discussion.  He's asking for you to be more specific in your requests.

As a community, however, it's difficult for us to understand what you're asking for in your posts.

If you're looking for reassurance that those losses are based on bad placement/luck, then you have it, and armed with that reassurance you should now be able to recognize (using an objective viewing of your own game histories) when future games fall into this same category.

If you're looking for review of your gameplay style, then you will need to
1) provide links to games that are actually skill based, not predetermined
2) be more specific in your request, asking more direct questions so the community knows what particular part of gameplay that you're trying to educate yourself on
3) show an interest in learning from the community's suggestions -> perhaps by heeding the lesson that 1v1 WGWF isn't the place for you right now, given your predisposition towards feeling overcome by bad luck.

Let us know what your direction is in these requests (provide some more information) and I think you'll find that people here love to discuss the intricacies of the game, and will gladly try to educate other community members on tactics and/or strategy.

Even before you respond, I will also say that I've reviewed some of your games, and I think my suggestions would align with A37.  You certainly were fighting an uphill battle in these games, but in that situation, you need to maintain the best odds you can have in any battle. With that in mind, when you're attacking, never attack with less than 3 guys, as the odds are hugely against you, and unnecessarily so.

You're better off keeping your last 3 armies on a country, and so you have a defensible position for when your opponent retaliates.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

A-Team - (I certainly don't speak for Thingol, but I will put in my own two cents as to what he might be referencing...)  
The x3 games that you posted are very similar.  In each game your opponent got a much better placement at game start (a nearly impossible detriment to overcome in 1v1 WGWF), you went second (which only adds to the difficulty), and you got some rough dice at inopportune moments (which put the nail in the coffin).  If you're just looking for a reviews of the games, then that's the review of all three.

 

However, before you recoil from Thingol's response, I propose viewing your posts from his perspective, and you might see why it could be slightly off-putting for the community:

Imagine the following:

You are a long standing member of a very welcoming and discussion-hungry community, who prides itself on enjoying the friendly competition of an online board game.  A new player joins said community, and, as always, the community very much wants to be welcoming to new players. But that new player's first introduction to the community is a rather inflammatory post (albeit certainly not intended as such, as previously stated) about this community, the website that you participate in, and specifically calls out the upper echelon of that community and accuses the website ownership of dice rigging in their favor, and at this new players expense.

How would this first post make you feel about this new player, and would it show that the player has respect for the community he is trying to become a member of?

Now the community, as a whole, bites its tongue long enough to keep from running the new player off the site for his accusation, and instead turns that discussion into an educational experience, and assuages his fears that the dice are not in fact rigged by showing that one's dice will eventually swing the other direction.  The community follows that statistical discussion up with a strong suggestion to avoid the particular games that are being chosen by this player (1v1 WGWF) because they are just about the worst games on the site to play when luck is frustrating you (specifically, because of the reasons listed above).
The player thanks the community for these suggestions and you feel like you've gained a new and valuable member.

A few days later, the same player is now posting a link/requesting review of a game that is the exact same type which the community already suggested avoiding. The player is not asking specific questions about "what should I have done once my opponent did X" or "was I not aggressive enough or too aggressive at turn X." He is only asking for a "review game X," one which has nothing to review:  most any objective viewer with a modicum of experience in Risk can see from the history that those particular games were 90% predetermined by the original placement of the board, and the remaining 10% was removed by turn 2 because of circumstantially bad dice.

The community wants to give the benefit of the doubt, so they respond with reassurance that it is unfortunate placement and bad dice that caused the demise on this particular game, and also reiterates that the particular game choice is oft susceptible to this situation so it would be in the players best interests to avoid 1v1 WGWF.

The player's follow up with new posts asking for more game reviews. 

 

Now I ask you: If you were in this situation, and this was your community and a new player was posting as you have posted, what information do you think the player would be requesting?  Or would it look to you, as it might to some of us, like the new player trying to bring these other games as retroactive evidence for your previously posted statement about dice rigging, one which we, as a community, have already stated we won't listen to?

 

You are correct, you didn't specifically request information from Thingol, nor exclude him.
Thingol isn't asking you to exclude or include him in the discussion.  He's asking for you to be more specific in your requests.

As a community, however, it's difficult for us to understand what you're asking for in your posts.

If you're looking for reassurance that those losses are based on bad placement/luck, then you have it, and armed with that reassurance you should now be able to recognize (using an objective viewing of your own game histories) when future games fall into this same category.

If you're looking for review of your gameplay style, then you will need to
1) provide links to games that are actually skill based, not predetermined
2) be more specific in your request, asking more direct questions so the community knows what particular part of gameplay that you're trying to educate yourself on
3) show an interest in learning from the community's suggestions -> perhaps by heeding the lesson that 1v1 WGWF isn't the place for you right now, given your predisposition towards feeling overcome by bad luck.

 

Let us know what your direction is in these requests (provide some more information) and I think you'll find that people here love to discuss the intricacies of the game, and will gladly try to educate other community members on tactics and/or strategy.

You are one cool cat... Much more patient to explain all that then I would be.

A few thoughts for A-Team and any other player who is starting out.

Check out profiles and past games from players who have a better H-rating than you.  You might see what they are doing that you aren't, or aren't doing that you are.  And you also get to see really good players getting thumped, which is a nice reminder that everybody loses now and then.  In fact, most players lose most of the time.

Try 3 or 4-player games.  They are totally different from duels. You might not like them, but try a few to find out.

In scenarios with more than one opponent, there is a better opportunity to recover from a bad turn or two. And if one player starts out with a crazy good field position, you can usually count on other players helping you even out the map a bit. 

Try a game or two with the slower settings.  They give all players more time to think, and (I feel) are less likely to have impatient jerks in them (might still have jerks, but they are patient ones).  I am definitely more of a jerk when I play real-time games.  The ticking clock brings it out in me.

Try some other maps, too! Playing just one type of game on one board -- that's barely scratching the surface of the available fun.

And since multiple opponents & new maps will be a radical new world, scope out the "Strategy and Tactics" forum for thoughts from other folks who are trying to learn boards (or were trying it like a year ago).

Thanks @Boris! I hear you. Great points. Seriously I hear you, I'll try to listen too. @Berick F. , yeah that was extremely thorough, but you know what, I needed it. His time/info has sweepingly overturned my opinions and concerns. Validating what all of you have said from the moment I first began to inquire but had a hard time grasping/believing. 

BTdubs et al, again, i am done complaining. I understand the luck/odds being against me, i get the board choice issue, as well i recognize that i make aggressive as well as hasty moves.  For now and maybe forever I will not venture to other boards or multi player. Call me a glutton for punishment, stuck in my ways, who knows.

Nevertheless, thanks everybody. Thanks thingol - no disrespect - thanks Tom...

...one other thought. What is the best way to deal with an individual such as me? The type who come in green slinging accusations, complaints, etc.. Perhaps an effort toward prevention...? I came to the site with a chip on my shoulder. I won't be the last one. I didn't come in trained to know the culture, hence I stomped all over it. You watched me flailing and screaming, digging a grave for myself... Intervention came after damage was done.

No response needed. Just problem solving so people like me can have the best experience possible and so folks like you are not inconvenienced or unnecessarily bothered. Truth be told I know I am not typical. I go all out. 

A-TEAM wrote:

...one other thought. What is the best way to deal with an individual such as me? The type who come in green slinging accusations, complaints, etc.. Perhaps an effort toward prevention...?

I wonder if you have any suggestions to this regard?  I feel like the community did as good job responding as could be expected.  Some people are hotheads, some respond brashly (not talking about you here, talking about the responses), but overall the responses were (mostly)  kind, helpful, and informative.

We could put up a FAQ on the wiki, but who would see it?

(btw - I did add this and similar threads to the wiki to make it easier in the future: http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:notable_forum_discussions )