Lack of speed game players over last days

[betiko]

Im not about to play 1vs1 classic flat rate ..... That IS a coin flip

well that's mostly what speed games are about in the current scene. over 90% of the maps are always the same (classic, doodle, luxembourg, feudal epic and feudal war trench, baltics crusade trench, peloponesian war, europe 1914). These guys all play the same shit over and over, and obviously know all the basics. Now throw in someting else and no one will join.

the awaiting 1v1 games you have in speed games have nothing to do with the awaiting 24h games.

[Stephan Wayne]

Im not about to play 1vs1 classic flat rate ..... That IS a coin flip

well that's mostly what speed games are about in the current scene. over 90% of the maps are always the same (classic, doodle, luxembourg, feudal epic and feudal war trench, baltics crusade trench, peloponesian war, europe 1914). These guys all play the same shit over and over, and obviously know all the basics. Now throw in someting else and no one will join.

the awaiting 1v1 games you have in speed games have nothing to do with the awaiting 24h games.

That isn't all together true. I start random map 1vs1 speed games and they get taken you just have to give it 5 minutes or so. I know thats not really fast but come on waiting 5 minutes for a game is not that bad you can even start 5 or more then once they get going theres no waiting. You get what you put in with the speed waiting.

[betiko]

Im not about to play 1vs1 classic flat rate ..... That IS a coin flip

well that's mostly what speed games are about in the current scene. over 90% of the maps are always the same (classic, doodle, luxembourg, feudal epic and feudal war trench, baltics crusade trench, peloponesian war, europe 1914). These guys all play the same shit over and over, and obviously know all the basics. Now throw in someting else and no one will join.

the awaiting 1v1 games you have in speed games have nothing to do with the awaiting 24h games.

That isn't all together true. I start random map 1vs1 speed games and they get taken you just have to give it 5 minutes or so. I know thats not really fast but come on waiting 5 minutes for a game is not that bad you can even start 5 or more then once they get going theres no waiting. You get what you put in with the speed waiting.

you are right, I should've added the random map which is created a lot and joined easily. There is also a factor to take into consideration: if a player sees a much higher ranked player on a map he isn't too familiar with he won't join them. Of course the odds are in the higher ranked's favour by far... but that's how the points earned/lost will reflect in the end.

[Dukasaur]

Don't start the whole "I play for fun and that's why my rank is low" argument again because it doesn't hold up. I've never seriously played for rank and my high score is a frustrating 2999. However, I do play to win and winning is fun. Playing a game and winning is more fun than losing. I also play with clan-mates and friends, which enhances the experience win or lose.

I don't disagree with most of this. Winning is more fun than losing, and of course I play to win. I'm not a terrible player, but I'm not a great player, either, and I have no illusions about that. I do win a fair bit, although I know if I paid closer attention and made fewer stupid mistakes I could win more.

When I say I don't obsess about winning, I don't mean that I'm advocating playing like an idiot. I mean that I play the maps and settings that are fun for me, even though they're not likely to result in high rank. I play a lot of big Sunny Escalating games, 8-player, 10-player, 12-player, etc. Games like that are very egalitarian. Being smart and using good strategy certainly helps, but bottom line is that you can't control and predict the actions of seven other players, and it's likely that the game will be won or lost independently of your actions. Games like that tend to bell-curve the scores, so people who play them tend to bounce around the middle ranks.

I also play a lot of 1v1, and 1v1 on most ordinary maps also tends to bell-curve the scores. As previous posters have said, on ordinary maps and ordinary settings, the right moves are fairly obvious, so the luck component is quite large. Yes, it's annoying when I'm a Captain and some Cadet with a great run of luck kicks my ass in 1v1 and collects 45 points, while I couldn't hope to collect more than 10 points if I had won. Still, that's the price I pay for choosing games without worrying about points.

I could get my rank higher if I gave up 1v1, gave up the big sunny escalators, and took on playing team games and/or polymorphic games on quirky maps I know better than most people, like Northwest Passage or Baltic Crusades. I like those games, but only in moderation. Playing an exclusive diet of them would be tiresome.

This is all I mean by not worrying about rank. I don't advocate playing badly, but I advocate playing maps and settings that I enjoy, which are not necessarily those that will bring me a really high win ratio or really high score.

[betiko]

Don't start the whole "I play for fun and that's why my rank is low" argument again because it doesn't hold up. I've never seriously played for rank and my high score is a frustrating 2999. However, I do play to win and winning is fun. Playing a game and winning is more fun than losing. I also play with clan-mates and friends, which enhances the experience win or lose.

I don't disagree with most of this. Winning is more fun than losing, and of course I play to win. I'm not a terrible player, but I'm not a great player, either, and I have no illusions about that. I do win a fair bit, although I know if I paid closer attention and made fewer stupid mistakes I could win more.

When I say I don't obsess about winning, I don't mean that I'm advocating playing like an idiot. I mean that I play the maps and settings that are fun for me, even though they're not likely to result in high rank. I play a lot of big Sunny Escalating games, 8-player, 10-player, 12-player, etc. Games like that are very egalitarian. Being smart and using good strategy certainly helps, but bottom line is that you can't control and predict the actions of seven other players, and it's likely that the game will be won or lost independently of your actions. Games like that tend to bell-curve the scores, so people who play them tend to bounce around the middle ranks.

I also play a lot of 1v1, and 1v1 on most ordinary maps also tends to bell-curve the scores. As previous posters have said, on ordinary maps and ordinary settings, the right moves are fairly obvious, so the luck component is quite large. Yes, it's annoying when I'm a Captain and some Cadet with a great run of luck kicks my ass in 1v1 and collects 45 points, while I couldn't hope to collect more than 10 points if I had won. Still, that's the price I pay for choosing games without worrying about points.

I could get my rank higher if I gave up 1v1, gave up the big sunny escalators, and took on playing team games and/or polymorphic games on quirky maps I know better than most people, like Northwest Passage or Baltic Crusades. I like those games, but only in moderation. Playing an exclusive diet of them would be tiresome.

This is all I mean by not worrying about rank. I don't advocate playing badly, but I advocate playing maps and settings that I enjoy, which are not necessarily those that will bring me a really high win ratio or really high score.

well in big sunny escalating games,there is a lot you can do to anticipate moves and have a win rate above your expected win rate. If you look at the top scorers of the site, playing exclusively big escalating 5-8 players games is a strategy commonly used to get a high rank. You just hope not to have one of these noobs breaking the ballance and giving away the game... so most of these players play in private games.
I almost only play team games now, and have 10 to 15 active games. I do have more fun with those and I do quite well.
You can feel the urge to play stupid games once in a whiile... that's why I think that scenarios games are quite cool. New approach of some maps, and you just play for fun, no points involved. I wish we could play those scenarios in speed games.

[codierose]

Most of the speedsters have stopped playing. Don't see hardly any of the hard core speedsters around any more. Tried setting up some 5 player terminators didn't get filled gave up after a hour.

[Stephan Wayne]

Most of the speedsters have stopped playing. Don't see hardly any of the hard core speedsters around any more. Tried setting up some 5 player terminators didn't get filled gave up after a hour.

Yeah those take a long time but you can still do it i watch it happen. Start 5 or so and wait like 3 hours and you will have played them all but there is no denying you cant make them and play them in the same 10 minutes like it the old days.

[codierose]

So what's drove peeps away

[betiko]

So what's drove peeps away

well the fact that the games are not filling for example! And the fact that most players have a discouraging low rank to even bother playing against them. maybe the site should organise some events in that sense... like 8 players escalating tuesdays or something like that... give a routine for a type of games on speed games.

oh and did I mention that for some people such as myself the conection has become absolutely terrible since the new servers? I time out all the time and always have to refresh my page. It's just unplayable if I have a lot of attacks in one same turn.

[codierose]

So what's drove peeps away

well the fact that the games are not filling for example! And the fact that most players have a discouraging low rank to even bother playing against them. maybe the site should organise some events in that sense... like 8 players escalating tuesdays or something like that... give a routine for a type of games on speed games.

oh and did I mention that for some people such as myself the conection has become absolutely terrible since the new servers? I time out all the time and always have to refresh my page. It's just unplayable if I have a lot of attacks in one same turn.

I had that problem with Firefox
What about 5 min turns used to love the 5 hour feudel games

[redbull168]

So what's drove peeps away

well the fact that the games are not filling for example! And the fact that most players have a discouraging low rank to even bother playing against them. maybe the site should organise some events in that sense... like 8 players escalating tuesdays or something like that... give a routine for a type of games on speed games.

oh and did I mention that for some people such as myself the conection has become absolutely terrible since the new servers? I time out all the time and always have to refresh my page. It's just unplayable if I have a lot of attacks in one same turn.

So my question is, why is there not a rank game option and non ranked. Like for instance in starcraft, and other strategy games. Make a ranked option or non ranked option.

[betiko]

So what's drove peeps away

well the fact that the games are not filling for example! And the fact that most players have a discouraging low rank to even bother playing against them. maybe the site should organise some events in that sense... like 8 players escalating tuesdays or something like that... give a routine for a type of games on speed games.

oh and did I mention that for some people such as myself the conection has become absolutely terrible since the new servers? I time out all the time and always have to refresh my page. It's just unplayable if I have a lot of attacks in one same turn.

So my question is, why is there not a rank game option and non ranked. Like for instance in starcraft, and other strategy games. Make a ranked option or non ranked option.

I hear ya mate. This has been proposed multiple times, but previous managements have rejected it. I don t really know what big wham thinks about it to tell the truth. I guess someone can answer that.

[betiko]

So what's drove peeps away

well the fact that the games are not filling for example! And the fact that most players have a discouraging low rank to even bother playing against them. maybe the site should organise some events in that sense... like 8 players escalating tuesdays or something like that... give a routine for a type of games on speed games.

oh and did I mention that for some people such as myself the conection has become absolutely terrible since the new servers? I time out all the time and always have to refresh my page. It's just unplayable if I have a lot of attacks in one same turn.

I had that problem with Firefox
What about 5 min turns used to love the 5 hour feudel games

Hey actually let s make a call out thread to make some speed games meet ups. People can just come in and post a challenge... Then change a few things in settings depending on what the majority of those willing to play together on certain day/hour want. I m heading there!

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=211018&p=4631375#p4631375

[leondarcy]

I got to brigadier just playing speed games, but only games with 4 to 6 players and flat rate.
That takes luck mostly out of the equation, except in the form of weak players/suiciders.
1v1 are coin flips and anyway not interesting per se, they take out the "uncooperative game theory" aspect that makes risk worthwile to play.

[betiko]

I got to brigadier just playing speed games, but only games with 4 to 6 players and flat rate.
That takes luck mostly out of the equation, except in the form of weak players/suiciders.
1v1 are coin flips and anyway not interesting per se, they take out the "uncooperative game theory" aspect that makes risk worthwile to play.

Flat rate -> taking luck out of the equation????????

But otherwise i do agree about 1v1 and multiplayer games. Nevertheless, 1v1 are fun just for the dice gamble. Given how dumb they are, and that we can play scenarios for no points...
I don t see why we shouldn t be allowed to play 1v1 for no points... Or 8 players freestyle assassin on doodle earth or any superluck games points free. There is almost no skill involved and it is purely for fun.

[iAmCaffeine]

I got to brigadier just playing speed games, but only games with 4 to 6 players and flat rate.
That takes luck mostly out of the equation, except in the form of weak players/suiciders.
1v1 are coin flips and anyway not interesting per se, they take out the "uncooperative game theory" aspect that makes risk worthwile to play.

Flat rate -> taking luck out of the equation????????

But otherwise i do agree about 1v1 and multiplayer games. Nevertheless, 1v1 are fun just for the dice gamble. Given how dumb they are, and that we can play scenarios for no points...
I don t see why we shouldn t be allowed to play 1v1 for no points... Or 8 players freestyle assassin on doodle earth or any superluck games points free. There is almost no skill involved and it is purely for fun.

I would argue in 4-6 player games there is less luck w/ flat rate than escalating. If someone fails a kill it's not as big a deal and a three card rainbow doesn't have as much impact as a three card 25. No spoils would negate the luck even more.

[betiko]

I got to brigadier just playing speed games, but only games with 4 to 6 players and flat rate.
That takes luck mostly out of the equation, except in the form of weak players/suiciders.
1v1 are coin flips and anyway not interesting per se, they take out the "uncooperative game theory" aspect that makes risk worthwile to play.

Flat rate -> taking luck out of the equation????????

But otherwise i do agree about 1v1 and multiplayer games. Nevertheless, 1v1 are fun just for the dice gamble. Given how dumb they are, and that we can play scenarios for no points...
I don t see why we shouldn t be allowed to play 1v1 for no points... Or 8 players freestyle assassin on doodle earth or any superluck games points free. There is almost no skill involved and it is purely for fun.

I would argue in 4-6 player games there is less luck w/ flat rate than escalating. If someone fails a kill it's not as big a deal and a three card rainbow doesn't have as much impact as a three card 25. No spoils would negate the luck even more.

Well suppose you play after a guy that just missed his kill by very little. You have 5 cards in hand, trade, finish the guy that got hammered.. He probably has 5 cards too so that leaves you with 7, maybe a double trade that goes up to 20 troops + land bonus... That s worth More than your 25 troops from escalating you were mentioning.
But yeah you are probably right,i just don t like flat rate cause in team games it s a total joke. Great for noobs that want to add luck to their home games. In 1v1 it s a total joke. I guess in multiplayer it s acceptable. The real risk game is with flat rate and is supposed to be played in multiplayer.

[iAmCaffeine]

I got to brigadier just playing speed games, but only games with 4 to 6 players and flat rate.
That takes luck mostly out of the equation, except in the form of weak players/suiciders.
1v1 are coin flips and anyway not interesting per se, they take out the "uncooperative game theory" aspect that makes risk worthwile to play.

Flat rate -> taking luck out of the equation????????

But otherwise i do agree about 1v1 and multiplayer games. Nevertheless, 1v1 are fun just for the dice gamble. Given how dumb they are, and that we can play scenarios for no points...
I don t see why we shouldn t be allowed to play 1v1 for no points... Or 8 players freestyle assassin on doodle earth or any superluck games points free. There is almost no skill involved and it is purely for fun.

I would argue in 4-6 player games there is less luck w/ flat rate than escalating. If someone fails a kill it's not as big a deal and a three card rainbow doesn't have as much impact as a three card 25. No spoils would negate the luck even more.

Well suppose you play after a guy that just missed his kill by very little. You have 5 cards in hand, trade, finish the guy that got hammered.. He probably has 5 cards too so that leaves you with 7, maybe a double trade that goes up to 20 troops + land bonus... That s worth More than your 25 troops from escalating you were mentioning.
But yeah you are probably right,i just don t like flat rate cause in team games it s a total joke. Great for noobs that want to add luck to their home games. In 1v1 it s a total joke. I guess in multiplayer it s acceptable. The real risk game is with flat rate and is supposed to be played in multiplayer.

Of course some circumstances will differ, but if I finish a failed kill and get 7 cards, the best cash I can ever get is 20, in escalating it could be enough to sweep a 10 man game.

Team games, 1v1, assassin and smaller games it's a luckfest, no disagreement there. I played the original risk and LotR risk a lot before coming here and it's always flat rate.

[rhp 1]

It's not a coin flip if you have any clue what your doing there are only 5 or 6 luck maps on the whole site if you cant turn the luck its you with the problem. Work on your skills before you bitch about no games worth playing.

If both players know what they are doing, it is a coin flip.

Wrong then its up to who is the better player are you trying to say if any good player plays a game with another good player its a coin flip ? If that is so what would the point of this site be and why are you here ???

When playing on maps like Luxemburg or Classic on classical settings and 1v1, it is often(not always) a coinflip. Most moves on such a small map are quite obvious. It is not unusual to have both players constantly make rational moves and the game gets decided by luck(cards, dices or drop).

Don't exagerate, I'm not saying all games are this way, but many of 'm are. This is mostly the case on the smaller maps with classical gameplay. The larger the map or the more complex the gameplay, the less this happens. But let's face it, the game is filled with tiny classical maps.

Typing laziness has degraded to " 'm " for them? Christ. How do you find the strength to roll outta the fucking bed in the morning?

[waauw]

When playing on maps like Luxemburg or Classic on classical settings and 1v1, it is often(not always) a coinflip. Most moves on such a small map are quite obvious. It is not unusual to have both players constantly make rational moves and the game gets decided by luck(cards, dices or drop).

Don't exagerate, I'm not saying all games are this way, but many of 'm are. This is mostly the case on the smaller maps with classical gameplay. The larger the map or the more complex the gameplay, the less this happens. But let's face it, the game is filled with tiny classical maps.

Typing laziness has degraded to " 'm " for them? Christ. How do you find the strength to roll outta the fucking bed in the morning?

Red Bull

[betiko]

It's not a coin flip if you have any clue what your doing there are only 5 or 6 luck maps on the whole site if you cant turn the luck its you with the problem. Work on your skills before you bitch about no games worth playing.

If both players know what they are doing, it is a coin flip.

Wrong then its up to who is the better player are you trying to say if any good player plays a game with another good player its a coin flip ? If that is so what would the point of this site be and why are you here ???

When playing on maps like Luxemburg or Classic on classical settings and 1v1, it is often(not always) a coinflip. Most moves on such a small map are quite obvious. It is not unusual to have both players constantly make rational moves and the game gets decided by luck(cards, dices or drop).

Don't exagerate, I'm not saying all games are this way, but many of 'm are. This is mostly the case on the smaller maps with classical gameplay. The larger the map or the more complex the gameplay, the less this happens. But let's face it, the game is filled with tiny classical maps.

Typing laziness has degraded to " 'm " for them? Christ. How do you find the strength to roll outta the fucking bed in the morning?

rolf!