qeee is a monster

[AAFitz]

Most people just don't have the BALLS to play singles games any more right?

No matter how good u are if u play singles then somebody else invariably choses who wins. It is impossible for anyone to win singles if the other players won't allow it which in effect makes it a lottery.

Therefore I tend to play 2 v 2. that way no-one else can be nvolved to influence the game. I would play singles if we had the option of 1 v1 with a neutral army - in fact think i would prefer that. Or alternatively play doubles where each player controls both is 2 players - oh if either were allowed.....

Peter

i love doubles too...for the same reasons....but the fun part about singles is getting the other players to choose you to win...that is the game...sometimes it comes easy...sometimes by accident...but sometimes...when you play it just right...you know you truly won it....thats why the singles are so much fun...but you do have to play with good players to enjoy them...It only takes one player to mess them all up...not to say Ive never been that one player

[pancakemix]

sully, did you just start this thread cause you are mad that he beat you in a game?

game: click here

That ended a couple months ago.

[GrazingCattle]

Can't imagine how he could do it...he must be a multi

I thought you had left after all the dug controversy. Now here you are accusing Quee of being a multi. jeez!

[plysprtz]

ahhhhhhhhh im not good at single player but i do play them

block









jk

[Hologram]

Go qeee! Weeee

Also, I have the balls, I'm just not exceptionally good. Kind of getting used to the new strategy of not playing against the same people over and over.

[sully800]

sully, did you just start this thread cause you are mad that he beat you in a game?

game: click here

That ended a couple months ago.

Haha, this thread was written a couple of months ago.

[sully800]

Most people just don't have the BALLS to play singles games any more right?

No matter how good u are if u play singles then somebody else invariably choses who wins. It is impossible for anyone to win singles if the other players won't allow it which in effect makes it a lottery.

Therefore I tend to play 2 v 2. that way no-one else can be nvolved to influence the game. I would play singles if we had the option of 1 v1 with a neutral army - in fact think i would prefer that. Or alternatively play doubles where each player controls both is 2 players - oh if either were allowed.....

Peter

Sorry for that quote being out of context. Dugcarr used to like to say that no one had the balls to play open singles games any more. However while he was saying that he had gone on a bout of playing only team games and no singles open games himself. I was just mocking him for contradicting himself and his views on the score system's integrity.

As for your point, I disagree slightly. Like you said, its possible for someone to ensure that you don't win in a singles game. But I don't think a single person can choose who DOES win (unless its 3 player). The nice part is, that if everyone plays as hard as they can to win the game for themselves then you don't have to worry about the situations that you described.

I do see why 2v2 team games are appealing though. There can never be any problems caused by alliances, unfair attacking, grudges, etc. It's one group versus another and none of that comes into play. It almost makes me wish a 1v1 singles game could work but I don't think it would at all.

[Robinette]

*sniff* *sniff*

I miss qeee already...

Well, take care of yourself, and BE NICE to Jane Gallagher in the Rye field

[yorkiepeter]

Therefore I tend to play 2 v 2. that way no-one else can be nvolved to influence the game. I would play singles if we had the option of 1 v1 with a neutral army - in fact think i would prefer that. Or alternatively play doubles where each player controls both is 2 players - oh if either were allowed.....

Peter

I do see why 2v2 team games are appealing though. There can never be any problems caused by alliances, unfair attacking, grudges, etc. It's one group versus another and none of that comes into play. It almost makes me wish a 1v1 singles game could work but I don't think it would at all.

Why not? with a neutral army as a 3rd player? the board game has that option.