Anyone want to start a team? I mainly play 3v3 europe with no cards... i hate getting stuck with people who don't work as a team...

I was on the opposite team to you in a game recently where you got frustrated with your team mates' picks, and it was warranted. I'm not a great player but I've been gradually getting better and I am quite confident coming up against most players in open multiplayer games. I will join you.

Your profile shows that you've played 100% of your games in real-time. Of course there are exception to this rule (you likely being one)but generally smarts and patience go hand in hand. I play about one game in 20 real-time and usually just for kicks. If by working well together you mean discussing the pros and cons of each others ideas then 5 min boot timer isn't what your looking for; theres not enough time to discuss what the best course of action is. For this reason, most, not all but most, of my favorite players on the site that I know won't team with you (or anybody for that matter) in a real-time game... nor in a game with open seats. In my mind these tools are a platform to be used to learn the ropes of the game, find serious players that share your skill level and in doing so start building your go-to invite list.

If your open to a multi-day game, two-three day auto-boot is my preference, then I'll create a game and team with you. If you prefer to stick solely to real-time games then your going to just have to stay patient and wait until you build a base-group of people that you have fun with and that play during the same hour of day that you do.

I agree with Blue, I have recently switched over too mostly playing multi-day (personally prefer tourneys) and it gives everyone more time to think out there moves, and much more relaxing.

And invite me if you want to play multi day game, I'm not an amazing player, but I'm quite familiar with 3v3/euro/no card.

I think the only game we played together I did awful. You can't judge some people by one game, sometimes you just aren't in it that day.

I have no problem playing with crappy players as long as they're willing to listen to suggestions. It sucks losing a game because of some moron but I simply blacklist them and move on. It's only a game.

like awesome said, you learn to know whos good and whos a good sport and you join those games.

I should have been more clear... by crappy players I mean people who can't take some advice ( I am always willing to listen to get better ), people who don't check their team mates orders ( and pick the same territories as you ) and people who end up having to make the game a vote to end. It would be nice to get a group together and know each others tendencies going into a game and not have to worry about the person on your team, you know?

what about ppl whose first language isn't English and couldn't understand what you want them to do?

How hard is it to type "No english" then it would be completely understandable and I would not get mad.

To be honest there are times when it is acceptable to pick a teammates picks.. in the 2v2 ladder, before me and my partner started our random awol leading to boots, we would often double up on picks that we figured would be more vital to our eventual victory in the game..

Blue Precision [WarLight Member] :
Your profile shows that you've played 100% of your games in real-time. Of course there are exception to this rule (you likely being one)but generally smarts and patience go hand in hand.

bullshit.

I would love to see your empiric evidence on that one, anything showing a significant connection of smarts with playing multi-day games.

I think you misheard him. he was trying to say that if you're more patient and slow down your game and really think, you can make well thought out moves. Think about it in chess terms, if you have 5 minutes to make a move or 3 days to make a move, you will have way more time analyzing all of the different possibilities. That doesn't necessarily make your move smarter...it just allows you to see all of the moves and make a good decision.

Some people are better than others at which they process all of these possibilities and in the game of warlight you don't necessarily NEED to know all of the possibilities, just the top 5 or 10. You get that when you play multi-day because there isn't the pressure of the clock on you.

I've had plenty of mis-moves in 5 minute games where I would have caught it in a multi-day. Does that mean we should all play multi-games? No. I have my own processing speed. Someone very well might just be good enough to only play real-time and be amazing. But put that person in a multi-day where they analyze their moves...makes them a lot better.

Guarantee that every person that has been in the top 15 in the ladder started out as a real-time player (when they first started) then moved to prefer multi (with the exception of Heyheuhei...he's a freak)

Thanks Ruthless, you nailed it. We must have been brothers in a past life.

Myhandisonfire. You're correct in ascertaining that I have no empirical evidence to support the claim, just first-hand experience. Real-time games, for the most part, are open games meaning that anyone can join. Your pool of serious players and non-serious, for sake of argument is likely 75%-25% generously on the side of serious players. So that means roughly one in four random teammates are the ones who are playing while cooking food, texting on there phone, watching sports or what have you. And this is not too mention the yahoo's who think its funny to ruin games.

I fit the mold that Anthebes was wanting in that I usually partner with the same 10-15 people so I just offered him my advice on how I managed to find them. In speaking to my prefered partners, when discussing critical moves it is not uncommon for us to have a good chunk of dialogue before executing orders. In fact, most of the smartest turns involve coordination: transfers, multiple yet specifically sequenced attacks from two different teammates etc, and this simply cannot happen in 5 min or less for most people. In speaking directly to territory selection, again, 5 min is not a lot of time especially if your teammate expects you to not overlap picks.

Heyheuhei and Samurai are two such lads that seem to be able to lock in moves before I even finish watching the turn sequence. Other then these "freaks" as Ruthless called them lol, I stand by my assertion for people who enjoy smart plays and teammate coordination generally play in multi-day games.

Blue Precision, of course you are right in what you say about coordination. There is a need for coordination, but I disagree that it has anything to do with playing multi or real time games. In my opinion, warlight isnt a too complex game, like chess for example, that you really need to ponder more than 5 minutes over your move.
When i play games 3on3 games, I rarely ever type anything, for multiple reasons.
When playing with noobs, average players, beginners or however you want to call them, I simply dont have the patience or willigness to talk them into making better moves. I accept their wrong moves as a greater challenge, which speaking for itself has a greater chance of failure.
But when playing with pros like Heyheu or Commidity or a couple of other excellent players there is seldom the need to talk at all. And that goes for playing against noobs or pros alike. In fact its a rarity if more than one move per game is being discussed.
There are several reasons to this. When playing with excellent players you kind of expect them to intuitively make the move with the greatest likelihood of success. But thats not all. Excellent players know that turn order in the team is a form of communication. The someone in the game, having to carry out a critical move usually waits for the others to make their moves first, choosing to carry out his move later, or he commits his turn first, making a statement to his teammates, forcing them to adapt. I admit that playing in a highly competitive game with added variables and strategical options such as cards, the need for communication might rise, but in a no card game moves to a certain level all moves are pretty much predetermined.
So basically playing with such players is for people who enjoy smart plays and teammate coordination - the communication and coordination form of blind understanding.

I would say you both could take this argument over a game haha, but hand is going to want to play it in real-time and blue (im guessing) is going to want to play it multi day. Lolz.

I would have to agree with myhand, and even though on my profile it says 100% real time games, I'm currently playing and have played a few multi-day games and to be honest, it seems that most people don't think more than 3 minutes before making their move, whether it's a real-time or multi-day game. It's quite rare to see someone go change their orders an hour later because they caught a mistake. Most people just commit quickly and don't come back until it's time to make another move.

I take about 2-3 minutes to process most average sized ffa 1v1 games.. team games require coordination and cooperation that apparently myhand thinks can be done telepathically...
you watch the 1v1 ladder, there are different styles of playing.. and one person looking at the game and processing it in one way, might result in actions that are different then the result that another player processes them.. and when those plans need to mesh together, they -should- communicate and possible figure out what the best course of action is for the team.

It's not telepathically. There's a very limited amount of good moves to make, and almost all are obvious to experienced players, so there's just no need to talk about it. And even if you want to talk about it, that doesn't take more than a couple minutes regardless. Team games rarely require much coordination, because each teammate is fighting his own front. When teammates meet, you can discuss orders quickly, but not much more than a line or 2 of chat is necessary.

Returning to the original topic...
anthbes, if you want to play real-time games with players that know what they are doing, why don't you just make your own template and set very strict requirements? For example min. 300 games, less then 5% boot rate and more than 50% games won? In that case you'll have to wait longer for players to join, but you'll be almost certain that you won't be disappointed with the quality of players.

For the latter discussions, shouldn't we all just accept it depends on the type of game? Some games, like the popular 3vs3 Europe with 4 starters, no card, require the minimum amount of intel gathering and coordination. 24 out of 32 territories are taken, so we generally know from the start where the attacks would come from. When we reduce the quantity of starters and introduce, for example, an airlift card, then many turns should be discussed in the matter of how to use some spare troops. Not to mention, it's just fun to socialize ;)