My name is Mostly Harmless... and I've become a two-player real-time game addict.   This is having detrimental effects on my ranking and my character.   I used to be globally ranked under 100.  Now, I'm over 500.   I always used to take the high road in the way I conducted myself.    Now, I find myself unable to control my frustration when I get beat five times in a row by a total novice because the luck of placement and/or dice and/or moving second makes the possibility of winning a matter of fate rather than strategy.     It takes a great deal of self-control to type "GG" after the 2nd turn when the game started with your opponent moving first and already owning a continent and/or your luck graph looks like the profile of  a double-black diamond ski-slope.  And even more self-control when game after game, your opponents don't even have the courtesy to respond or the humility to concede that a blind squirrel could have won that game (in-between burying it's newfound hoard of nuts).

You might ask, if I know ahead of time that this is the reality of these games, why do I join them?  And in doing so, you would be rightly demonstrating that you are wise and I am a fool and idiot.

Yes, I acknowledge the problem is mine, not my opponents.   So, that is why I'm reaching out to this forum with this silly post... so that if any of you catch me in one of those damn games again, I will feel the shame I rightly deserve.   And you can come here and publicly humiliate me.  

Lol, I have a 2-player SG in the works MH that should go live soon. It's balanced very well IMO, so perhaps that can alleviate your frustration for a short duration. ;)

Thingol wrote: Lol, I have a 2-player SG in the works MH that should go live soon. It's balanced very well IMO, so perhaps that can alleviate your frustration for a short duration. ;)

Shame on you!  Would you offer an alcoholic a drink!  Would you dangle a Ho-Ho in front of an obese person?!   Or one Ho in front of a sex addict?!

(hmmm, but your new map does sound intriguing...)

No! Tempt me not evil one!

(I think I'm supposed to be calling a sponsor for support at this time)

Oh wait, that was just a test wasn't it.  There is no map, really, right? right?

(PM me if I'm wrong)

No, no, NO!  Damn, now I have to go write another "stop me" kind of message in shaving cream on my bathroom mirror. 

 

haha! nice post! I've cetainly been there.

@Thingol: do you still need testers? I am a fan of your 2 player maps!

poq wrote:

haha! nice post! I've cetainly been there.

@Thingol: do you still need testers? I am a fan of your 2 player maps!

Still there, still playing real-time games, still finding myself smoked for joining silly antastic or other games not designed for 2-players :P

Looks like we've got the makings of a support group.  

 

Lol, I'll need 'players' here pretty soon. I would like to start a tourney very soon.

I have played over 1000, RT 2 player games, so I know exactly what you are talking about.  My angst was such that I tracked my luck in over 800 WGWF games to prove to myself that the universe was not conspiring against  me and my bad luck would eventually turn around (which it did, you can see the posts on the board).

What is amazaing to me is the inability for me to significantly reduce my frustration level after so many 'lessons learned'.  I tell myself, time after time, that being humiliated by luck is a lesson that life isn't fair and you should not expect it to be.....sigh....I have gotten a little better, but not much, sometimes I get to the point where I put up the luck chart on my opponents turn and keep hitting refresh to see whether my luck is going up or down as my opponent plays since that seems the most important influence on winning, i dont watch where they are placing or attacking, just what their luck is!....man, i am getting all wound up just thinkin about it, gotta go

Same motivation that causes you to play, and enjoy playing the same game.

Andernut wrote:

still finding myself smoked for joining silly antastic or other games not designed for 2-players :P

If you are interested, I created several 'duel' scenarios for my world map:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Simple+World

They have modified card and starting bonus and I'd love to get some feedback on if they seem balanced for 2nd position.

Ozyman wrote:

Andernut wrote:

still finding myself smoked for joining silly antastic or other games not designed for 2-players :P

If you are interested, I created several 'duel' scenarios for my world map:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Simple+World

They have modified card and starting bonus and I'd love to get some feedback on if they seem balanced for 2nd position.

but they're all turn based if I am not mistaken? 

I've decided only to play 2 player games if they're simulgear.

poq wrote:

but they're all turn based if I am not mistaken? 

I've decided only to play 2 player games if they're simulgear.

This is a interesting statement.  2-player games are, at least time wise, no different than simulgear in that a round lasts as long as it takes two players to (take their turns)/(place their orders).

I would think just the opposite.  Games that have more than two players are more susceptible to discrepancies of order.  I.e., your placement behind or in front of the "strong" player, etc.

So I'm curious. What is your reasoning?

M57 wrote:

poq wrote:

but they're all turn based if I am not mistaken? 

I've decided only to play 2 player games if they're simulgear.

This is a interesting statement.  2-player games are, at least time wise, no different than simulgear in that a round lasts as long as it takes two players to (take their turns)/(place their orders).

I would think just the opposite.  Games that have more than two players are more susceptible to discrepancies of order.  I.e., your placement behind or in front of the "strong" player, etc.

So I'm curious. What is your reasoning?

I think poq is referring to negating turn order differences. With a two player SG and random turn order this fits the bill.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

M57 wrote:

Games that have more than two players are more susceptible to discrepancies of order.  I.e., your placement behind or in front of the "strong" player, etc.

So I'm curious. What is your reasoning?

I think poq is referring to negating turn order differences. With a two player SG and random turn order this fits the bill.

ATH got it right. The turn order can have a strong influence in games with more than 2 players, but the effect usually fades out as the game progresses (or rather gets incorporated into the gameplay). But in 2p tb-games the first turn is of crucial value and in some maps (like WGWF) so are the initial conditions.

I remember playing a series of over 10 games against a friend who I regard as equally strong on Colossal Crusades (actually it was on tos with the equivalent board), and every single time the starting player won. We had a perfectly even record when we decided to give it up.

As MostlyHarmless so eloquently explained above, for a board like WGWF the initial conditions can easily make or break the game. Even if they are fair, the simple matter of whether you capture a territory on your first move will decide the game if the two players are on equal footing. The first attack is usually a 6v3, sometimes a (5+4)v3 or a (4+4+4)v3 so the odds are pretty much fixed. I might as well play a match of coin flipping.

On tos Thingol had two LOTR-themed sg maps (Battle for Rohan and Mordor vs. Gondor). They were a lot of fun. They seemed balanced, were complex and variable enough to allow for exciting games.

That's the key.  MH needs to redirect his 2-player addiction to boards that are balanced as 2p maps.  They are out there but most are outside the typical World Map type of board.  This can cure the itch of wanting to play 2p and at the same time take more luck out of the equation.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

That's the key.  MH needs to redirect his 2-player addiction to boards that are balanced as 2p maps.  They are out there but most are outside the typical World Map type of board.  This can cure the itch of wanting to play 2p and at the same time take more luck out of the equation.

And/also there seems to be demand for a simulgear version of wgwf. ;-)

There is a Simulgear map. It is a scenario under the Global Warfare map.

CK66 wrote: There is a Simulgear map. It is a scenario under the Global Warfare map.

Ahh. I didn't know that. I wonder why everyone keeps playing 2p games on wgwf then.

Would it make sense to disallow 2p tb games on wgwf? Or would that be too harsh? After all, these 2p games somewhat distort the whole ranking system.

 

poq wrote:

CK66 wrote: There is a Simulgear map. It is a scenario under the Global Warfare map.

Ahh. I didn't know that. I wonder why everyone keeps playing 2p games on wgwf then.

Would it make sense to disallow 2p tb games on wgwf? Or would that be too harsh? After all these 2p games pretty much somewhat distort the whole ranking system.

I wonder, ..are there a lot of players that have played the SG version for 2-players?  Any comments about how well it works?

Poq, the Muster of Rohan map, which you referred to, is basically awaiting the Review Board to pass it:

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/207840