yorkiepeter wrote:sully800 wrote: 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.
