What makes a player good?

[DarthFrog]

I've played enough games now to know that the rank a player carries means very little sometimes. I have played against lower ranked players who have played very well while some higher ranked players I wondered how they got to be an officer.

What do people on this site think are the qualities that makes a player good in their eyes? And in turn, what makes a player bad?

[gameplayer]

Your intuition is right, rank is not a good indication of skill, particularly below the major level. There are lieutenants who got lucky in a few doodle assassin speed games and aren't very skilled at all. There are lieutenants who used to be brigadiers before they went "medal hunting", playing lots of low-percentage games to get some of the hard-to-get medals, losing many points in the process. Those are the two extreme ends of the spectrum, and most players fall somewhere in the middle. My personal opinion is that a reasonable skillful player playing a variety of game types will max out somewhere around major. Anything colonel and above you're probably "gaming" the system a little by playing mainly a certain game type, teaming with the same partners over and over again, or teaming with much lower ranked players. There's nothing unfair or cheating about doing that, it's just not how the average player wants to spend their time on the site. To qualify this, there are some players who stay above 2500 playing a variety of game types, but not very many.
Take away message? Don't let rank psyche you out too much, even at brigadier I still lose 47% of my games. There are so many game types and styles on this site that one unified ranking system is a very flawed way of measuring a player skill. The best way to know how "good" someone is would be to just play some games with them.

[rdsrds2120]

This looks like a nice topic for General Discussion, seeing that you're not asking for any strategic principles
Good luck on your thread!

-rd

[Metsfanmax]

Farming newbies

[Army of GOD]

Complaining about the dice when you get bad dice and complimenting your skill when you get good dice.

[Metsfanmax]

Foeing low ranked players who beat you

[jefjef]

Play a lot of Oasis freestyle quads with low ranked partners and be sure to have their passwords.

[Metsfanmax]

Insisting that clan games be forfeited when a player resigns from the clan

[Commander62890]

A good player does not make mistakes

A bad player makes a lot of mistakes (and does not realize why they are mistakes, even on reflection).


You like?

It's tough to know how specific you want this to get.

For example: a bad player attacks neutrals when he should not. A bad player attacks teammates when he should not.

Is that what you want?


Also, there are not just "good" and "bad" players. There are many who are in between (and also "great" and "horrible").

And then there's game type - some players are good at some games and bad at others.

[Army of GOD]

ALWAYS attack a 2v1, even when that territory means nothing.

OR well that's my rule of thumb and I'm probably the best on the site!

[Joodoo]

For standard and team games, it's pretty clear and cut on a player's skills. For example in a big standard no spoils game, the person who is mildly aggressive and only attacks when they need to will probably take the game if his/her dice is decent during the process. Standard is about deciding how your positions and moves would motivate another player's actions, and using that knowledge to place yourself in the best position for the long run. For team games it's mainly about deciding on division of work and when sacrifices are needed to win the game for the team.

Grey areas are more common in terminator and assassin game. In assassin games, you do not explicitly know the targets of other players by the end of the game. For the duration of the game, you may see hints of who was targeting who (ex.a player hits your territories 90% of the time but another player wins,you can assume that that player had you as his/her target), but there are many situations where it is not evident if a player is making a "good move" or "stupid move". Generally, players who are able to execute an elimination in a small amount of turns while ensuring that other players aren't eliminated are skilled in assassin games. In terminator games, controversy arises mainly when the players in the game vary by a lot in points/rank. High ranked players are often targeted first because they are worth the most points upon elimination and that generally gives them no opportunity to survive. The best players in terminator games are the ones who are able to gain the most points by the time the game ends, but that requires many different considerations that are not the same as standard games. You need to think about the possibility of other players being more impulsive and/or quicker to react when it comes to eliminations.

[Fruitcake]

Making sure you enter your team mates into tourneys you know they cannot fulfil whilst also adding them to your own team ....meanwhile you ensure you take their turns in your own games to maximise the personal benefits to you of their points loss through deadbeating the tourneys.

[Mr Changsha]

I'm going to say genuine, self-reflective honesty. Those that can admit when they won through dice or a fortuitous position, those able to see that it isn't always 'the opposition's spectacular dice' that cost them, those that can understand that their rank is to a great extent determined by the diversity of games they play and those rare few...who are able to accept that their strategy may not have given them every chance of winning.

A useful thing CC has taught me is that self-delusion often accompanies incompetence in equal measure. We are all guilty of it to an extent, no doubt as the element of luck in Risk allows us to retreat into 'ifs, buts and maybes'. I might not know who is the best, but those that end up in some kind of mad fantasy world of special dice patches, better dice for high ranks (or premium) or spend days, weeks or it seems even years (in some especially tragic cases) gibbering over dice stats are surely the worst.

[natty dread]

those that end up in some kind of mad fantasy world of special dice patches, better dice for high ranks (or premium) or spend days, weeks or it seems even years (in some especially tragic cases) gibbering over dice stats are surely the worst.

Hear hear

[DarthFrog]

This looks like a nice topic for General Discussion, seeing that you're not asking for any strategic principles
Good luck on your thread!

-rd

oops .. thanks

[DarthFrog]

I have to say that I admire the never give up attitude some players have.

The best players I have played against are those where you think you have in a tough spot, and you come back into the game, and you think "how did they do that?" and never give you any easy space. Love playing against those guys because you have to be at your very best to have a chance to beat them.

What I don't like and find to be on the bad scale is when a player hurts himself badly to just take away one of your early bonuses, putting themselves and who they attacked way behind. And like Army of God said, those who attack until they have 1s all over the board no matter what kind of game it is.

[greenoaks]

it is simple - the longer their schlong, the greater their skill

[owenshooter]

a great player eats all his/her vegetables...-the black jesus

[xenowolff]

i think that three things play a major role in making a player good: strategy, outlook, and karma.

i say strategy because lets face it, anyone can choose a teritory to attack and hit it with everything they have. knowing where to attack and when, knowing how to read the board, how to anticipate others moves, all of that is important.

by outlook, i mean general thoughts on the game. the will to never give up in a bad situation, even though its just a game, is important. we all know about playing games with those guys that get pissed when something doesnt go their way (both in real life and cc) so i say outlook makes a good player

and lastly, karma. lets face it, sometimes luck is an issue. good players, however, can easily play good games with poor rolls and bad luck.

plus, remembering its just a game can help, too XD

[rdsrds2120]

A great player is not only measured by their ability to play the game, but how effective they are at communicating (especially in team games). In other words, sportsmanship. If I were to beat a general and get cussed out, they may have good strategy, but I don't think that they are a better player. Being a good player has many facets, strategy and sportsmanship are only some of them.

-rd

[thebest712]

a good player sees when he has made a mistake

[JBlombier]

a good player sees when he has made a mistake

So he sees the mistakes of others as well and can take full advantage of it. It's all about taking opportunities when they occur and prepare for them to happen. Because they will happen, pretty much every game. If they don't, you're either really unlucky or you just weren't prepared enough.

[safariguy5]

I think you need to have confidence in the odds. People whine about dice all the time, but using the odds to your advantage can often win you games. For example, going 4v5 is something I have no problem with because I can often whittle down the stack and sometimes take the territory outright. Especially in team games, getting the opponent army count down can mean the difference between a close win and a close loss.

[Commander62890]

Being a good player has many facets, strategy and sportsmanship are only some of them.

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with my definition of whether someone is a "good" or "bad" player.

a good player sees when he has made a mistake

So he sees the mistakes of others as well and can take full advantage of it. It's all about taking opportunities when they occur and prepare for them to happen. Because they will happen, pretty much every game. If they don't, you're either really unlucky or you just weren't prepared enough.

I think you need to have confidence in the odds. People whine about dice all the time, but using the odds to your advantage can often win you games. For example, going 4v5 is something I have no problem with because I can often whittle down the stack and sometimes take the territory outright. Especially in team games, getting the opponent army count down can mean the difference between a close win and a close loss.

Yes, all good stuff.

To the first point - knowing when you've made a mistake shows how well you know the game... it is usually the result of not studying the map long enough, as opposed to an inherent defect in your strategy.

Safariguy touches on something very important. I have found that many noobs will not attack with odds like 4v5 in 1v1s and team games. That is a mistake. You should almost always attack if you have 4 or more armies. There are, of course, circumstances in which you will want to fort that stack instead of use it. Recognizing when you should do that is just another small part of mastering 1v1s and team games. This is just the tip of the iceberg here...

There's no way we can cover everything in GD.

I am waiting patiently for the day someone creates a comprehensive guide to team game strategy...

And, trust me, it isn't all about "communication."

It's sort of intriguing that no one ever attempted to make a team game guide that covered every aspect you can possibly think of. I imagine it would be huge...

[Crazyirishman]

A good player usually has a nice ass, and does all the little things right in tight situations. Are firm when they need to be but are still willing to make compromises at times.