I'm nearing 500 games so looking to fill a multi-day game for every player with 500 games experience.

The map can be either Europe or Medium Earth (vote)
You can call your own starting bonus, any of the +3 or +4 bonuses ( First come first serve )

Settings:

50% luck
70% attack
75% defend

Starting armies= 3
Initial income= 5

Abandon in 5 pieces for 500%
Diplomacy in 4 pieces for 1 turn (weight 2)
Sanction in 4 pieces for 30% for 1 turn (weight 2)

1 Card piece per turn
Maximum 5

Vote to boot= 1 day
Direct boot= 3 days


LOOKING FOR 9 PLAYERS

I'm in for sure!
My vote is for Medium Earth, and I call Scandinavia
If Europe is chosen, I call Finland

(You should change abandon to blockade though)

im in

in

Pick me!

Make an exception with me? My last three member games all ended with me being on a team where some f*ckhead decided to leave... (In the second or third turn too!).

Dansonno you only have 250 games played thats 50% of games required you need at least 450 to have exception surely

I dont understand the point of having games based on number of games played. Is it a skill thing? Cause I have 656 ranked games played and 773 games overall, but I assure I am not a great player, and in fact I am worse now than I was 500 games ago, but there was a brief point maybe 100 games ago when I was the best I had ever been. It's just that I play a lot of games. Even number of wins doesn't mean much..

Honestly just wondering why, not trying to criticize here!

more games generally means more experience and better players. in extremes, people with under 100 games are generally awful and people with over 1000 are generally the best on the site (obviously with variance), but overall the more games you play the better you get.

I only have 226, but I think I'm pretty damned good :(

I was 20th on the ladder before I had 100 games.
And I don't consider myself good (yet).

I doubt that line of reasoning. The top five players on the ladder currently are as follows:

Doushibag - 310 games played - 11/21/2008
The Impaller - 889 games played - 3/28/2010
Fizzer - 665 games played - 6/14/2008
Duke - 580 games played - 1/23/2010.
Shogun - 152 games played - 6/16/2008

Impaller clearly matches your criteria, but the second highest in terms of games, Fizzer, is not worth quantifying since he has obviously been playing since 6/14/2008 so has a lot of games racked up. Meanwhile, Doushibag and Shogun have a paltry amount of games over a similarly large period of time, and Duke, though breaking your 500 game limit, has also been playing since 1/23/2010.

If we continue, we see TeddyFSB with an impressive 1092 games and only joined 7/24/2010. NuckLuck comes in with 546 since 6/24/2010, then its back down again with Waya's 251 since 1/24/2011. With BostonFred youre back up to 1431 since 6/7/2010, then its Blue Precision at 734 since 12/25/2009. Troll, who is just outside the top ten, refutes the idea again with 358 since 6/15/2008.

While I think it's clear that a lot of games does contribute to more skill, it's equally clear that the majority of the Top Five have a smaller amount of games and in fact time spent playing (or perhaps other factors) might be a better indicator of skill.

Interestingly, most players with a lot of games are also primarily 1v1 players. Although it's not possible to determine who is playing 5-min 1v1, but you could go through a lot of those in a very short time, which would also skew the results. So while you state that "the more games you play the better you get," it would seem better to say "the more 1v1 games you play the better you get at 1v1" or some variations thereof.

Basically someone is making a large, FFA game for people who played a lot of 1v1s. The concept just seems a tad ridiculous other than as some sublime desire to have others notice the fact that you have played a lot of games.

im in if private messaging is off

metaphor, not many are ranked on the ladder. games played is the only thing we have to guess a players skill level. i'd bet games played is a much better indicator of skill over what people think of their own skill level

all other variables unknown (which is always the case, unless you remember playing with them before). a random guy with 400 games is more likely to be better than a random guy with 150 games

notice how none of those guys are under 100 games

flc735:
> games played is the only thing we have to guess a players skill level.

Um, no. Profile also shows win percentage in any kind of game. For example, you won 38% of your 1v1s, and I won 58% (still pretty lame). My 2v2s are at 63%, same with 3v3s, 4v4 is 81%.

BM, I honestly just want to setup a game that's newcomer free.

Games played is the fastest way to narrow down the noobs.

I do get your point, but more detailed criteria, such as say, 100 five player FFA games played will lead to a much smaller number of members, many of which may never check this forum.

I could also post something like:

Add your 4 player FFA, 5 player FFA and 6 player FFA. If it's above 200 please join my game.

I'm just trying to setup a game rather quickly that is, fairly or not, inclusive to those who have been around at least long enough to understand the gameplay extensively.

500 games in 3 months doesn't automatically indicate prestige, but it does mean that player spend a hell of a lotta time on warlight, and I would like to play with such a player in a 10 player game ( which is considered a large game ).

ALSO, a big factor in games played is players are more likely to stick around.

You'll find players with 500+ games often have a lower boot percentage.

% won is also a good indication but experience is still much more accurate
1v1 and FFA % are pretty accurate
but 2v2, you only have a 25% say in the outcome. 2 decent players will always beat a eliet player and a noob
3v3, you only have a 17% say in the outcome
ect...

if im looking for a good 3v3 teammate, i would prefer the 66 / 153 guy over the 22 / 35 guy. i think experience overwhelms winning % in this case. just IMO

Really the only way to tell how well someone plays is to play them (either same team or different teams). The numbers are an indicator, but they can be misleading. A lot of good players were good after 100 games. The maps, cards, setting options and even attack options (no more stacking) have all changed just in the last year. I think I continue to improve, but my improvement is mostly getting the nuances on a given map or setting or opponant then it is understanding the game mechanics and tactics.

Imho, more games has very little to do with more skill, afetr about 100 games ish the information becomes moot, and the instances of 1000+ games in less then a year as compared to others that are 400 in 4 years just tells of play style.. RT vs MD players. generally RT players play faster, but put less thought into each move.. moving fast =/= skill, and generally the multiday players will examine each of their 300 games more in-depth.

that's part of the reason I want a placeit says RT games completed and MD games completed

Btw, i am sitting at 556 games played, and think I was 10X better when i was closer to 100-150 games played