Multiplayer games - Not Enough of a Reward!

[Bruceswar]

His post was sarcasm... I am sure you can see it..

[oVo]

Muchas gracias Bruce, I looked everywhere for that font and couldn't find it.

(iii) point hor = player who will do anything it takes to get more points... point whore.

[KoE_Sirius]

It seems to me, that you might enjoy terminator games.

QFT....This area of CC is already covered .If you dont like the points reward play teminator and the points you receive are relative .

[FabledIntegral]

I wish winning 1v1's were as easy as you said - last game I played I absolutely, utterly DOMINATED my opponent in strategy. Seeing as I would only get around 10-11 points for a win, it was expected. However, dice shafted me. The kid left all singles for me to take over as on round 2 he slammed into TWO different neutrals to get Oceania! Oh... I thought I was golden, I had two armies of 3 in Oceania that I thought were going to be out of the battle as the drop had screwed me... nope! He brought them right back into play killing them (thus better than being behind a neutral wall, useless). So now my territory count is making me get 6 armies per turn, him 3 + 2 for Oceania AND he's down a hell of a lot of armies... I have 26 to his 19. I should be set, right? So we keep going... he leaves Oceania as an easy break, I have 9v1,1,1 and fail... oh well, that was 8 armies just lost ... to kill 2 singles... alright, I can rebound, as the deployments are still equal and he's playing dumb... oh! He leaves Oceania vacant full of singles again... BAM I go to take it with a cash... take the first three singles losing 2 armies... ok whatever... 5v1 vs the last single and every roll fails me... he then deploys in Aussie as we keep deploying... battle is even... then he wins 4v7 in an auto attack and wins the game.

I'll stick to multiplayer games, thank you. 33 points gone.

[wacicha]

36 1v1 played won 7. easy points lol. I play term cause I like instant gratification. I play Classic term.

Lately i have been trying new maps. In order to learn new maps you have to pay. I paid with points. I was a Sargent 2 weeks ago (again). But that is the nature of this site. Enjoy your 1 v 1 wins I envy you.

[Incandenza]

You know... the same thing happens in the Olympics... all that effort and only 3 people recognized... But in the next Olympics, being hosted in London, they plan to fix that...

Ba-zing!

[Zemljanin]

LOL, I finished 10 1-1 games and won 5 - winning percentage exactly 50%. Also finished 13 8p games and won 8 - winning percentage roughly 62%

[Robinette]

LOL, I finished 10 1-1 games and won 5 - winning percentage exactly 50%. Also finished 13 8p games and won 8 - winning percentage roughly 62%

I've never played 1-1 games....

BUT... i have played 8p games, and THAT is an impressive record you have there so far...

[The Chosen]

You know... the same thing happens in the Olympics... all that effort and only 3 people recognized... But in the next Olympics, being hosted in London, they plan to fix that...

Erm... we finished 4th in the medal table with only a third of the team members of China and the USA, so this is no longer a relevant cartoon. Also, wasn't it interesting that every country in the world put China at the top of the table and USA in second... apart from the USA. Hmmm... talk about state propaganda.

[Azathoth]

A 1vs1 game and an 8-player game are, essentially, not even the same game anymore.

There might be good cause to argue that an 8-player game should yield more points, but I don't think you can reasonably correlate it to the rewards from a 1vs1 game. I'm still new, of course, so take this all with a grain of salt (or a bag, if you're one of those lovely people who think new folk never have anything useful to contribute), but the nature of the game itself changes depending on the options you select, and some are just plain easier than others.

I myself, for instance, have an easier time with standard, sequential games -- although sequential vs freestyle might be a bad example, because I'm often killed more by server refresh time than lack of reaction time or differences in player skill. In the case of multiple player games, it's hard to characterize because although you've got more players working directly against you, you've also got some working indirectly for you and a huge part of multiplayer games is using this to your advantage. I'd argue that the luck vs skill aspect of the game stays roughly the same unless you're playing against people who actively dislike you. You just have to have a different sort of skill to win these games, and a different sort of luck as well.

[Robinette]

You know... the same thing happens in the Olympics... all that effort and only 3 people recognized... But in the next Olympics, being hosted in London, they plan to fix that...

Erm... we finished 4th in the medal table with only a third of the team members of China and the USA, so this is no longer a relevant cartoon. Also, wasn't it interesting that every country in the world put China at the top of the table and USA in second... apart from the USA. Hmmm... talk about state propaganda.

Yes indeed... the Brits made a great showing,,, no offense intended... i would have preferred a cartoon that did not mention a country as all i was trying to do was comment on the OP's idea....

But your 2nd point seems odd... i never heard that sentiment... was that really the case OR is that just how the queens propaganda spun it? eh?

[Mr Changsha]

You know... the same thing happens in the Olympics... all that effort and only 3 people recognized... But in the next Olympics, being hosted in London, they plan to fix that...

Erm... we finished 4th in the medal table with only a third of the team members of China and the USA, so this is no longer a relevant cartoon. Also, wasn't it interesting that every country in the world put China at the top of the table and USA in second... apart from the USA. Hmmm... talk about state propaganda.

Yes indeed... the Brits made a great showing,,, no offense intended... i would have preferred a cartoon that did not mention a country as all i was trying to do was comment on the OP's idea....

But your 2nd point seems odd... i never heard that sentiment... was that really the case OR is that just how the queens propaganda spun it? eh?

The Chinese were certainly a little miffed about the Americans saying they had come first. Does America usually count the medals in that way (overall rather than golds) or just in this Olympics?

[Robinette]

You know... the same thing happens in the Olympics... all that effort and only 3 people recognized... But in the next Olympics, being hosted in London, they plan to fix that...

Erm... we finished 4th in the medal table with only a third of the team members of China and the USA, so this is no longer a relevant cartoon. Also, wasn't it interesting that every country in the world put China at the top of the table and USA in second... apart from the USA. Hmmm... talk about state propaganda.

Yes indeed... the Brits made a great showing,,, no offense intended... i would have preferred a cartoon that did not mention a country as all i was trying to do was comment on the OP's idea....

But your 2nd point seems odd... i never heard that sentiment... was that really the case OR is that just how the queens propaganda spun it? eh?

The Chinese were certainly a little miffed about the Americans saying they had come first. Does America usually count the medals in that way (overall rather than golds) or just in this Olympics?

lol... ahhh, now i see what you are referring too.... well... the answer is yes,,, over here the prime focus has always been the overall medal count followed the type of medal... well, ever since i can remember anyway...

[Zemljanin]

I've never played 1-1 games....

Believe me, you haven't lost much.
My very fifth game on this site was 1-1 - just wanted to try. How was it?
Huh, now I have to make an ugly mix of two most influential imperialistic languages, since I'm not good enough in any of them (to express myself poetically). Please try to imagine how Milton would say the next sentence on English, or better yet, how would Virgil say it on Latin.

VENI, VIDI, VICI and decided to never play it again.

Still, being anti-dogmatic, I collected a dozen during the time. Few here - in friendly match; several there - in my first tourney...
In a word, I don't play it generally, but sometimes, when I have a special reason...

However, when I go over 4000, I'll play a bunch - to distribute points as Robin Hood would
If you're interested in/for reservation, Robinette, you may book it now I mean, super-clash - Robin vs Robinette

[FabledIntegral]

Chosen the reason you think multiplayer games are not enough of an award is because you're an idiot. Maybe if you didn't kill otehr people's armies to try to take europe you'd win some.

[The Chosen]

Oh F*bledI*nt*gr*l... you are so crass and stupid.

I would rather be a major with a 4.8 rating than a Brigadier with a 3.9 rating (and falling) anyday. Please don't bother to post again on one of my threads as I've foe'd you so that I don't have to read anymore of your nonsense.

TC

[OliverFA]

By the way. If we accept that the second player in the game might not be the 2nd best player... Then we should also accept that the last player might also not be the best player...

[Mr Changsha]

By the way. If we accept that the second player in the game might not be the 2nd best player... Then we should also accept that the last player might also not be the best player...

I see your point there OliverFA, but I would suppose that when you win, you do consider yourself to be the best player on the board, no?

[OliverFA]

By the way. If we accept that the second player in the game might not be the 2nd best player... Then we should also accept that the last player might also not be the best player...

I see your point there OliverFA, but I would suppose that when you win, you do consider yourself to be the best player on the board, no?

I don't pretend to say that the last player standing does not deserve the points. What I am trying to say is that it seems a bit incoherent to say that the last player standing is the best one, but have doubt about the last player eliminated. If you assume the last stangind player is the best, then you should assume the last eliminated was the second best.