Warzone players have different mindsets going into the game. Casual warzone players play for fun, but at the same time they do not seem to mind if they lose or win. Casual players are often very autopick friendly, and may seem to favor larger maps, and quicker paced games.

Competitive players, conversely, tend to prefer more 1v1s and strategic maps. They are more ladder friendly, and might seek out high-skill games while casual players often don't care who they are fighting. They often prefer manual picks over auto, and warlords distribution over full.

A competitive player generally cares more about winning than a casual player, but they will still usually be a good sport if they lose and say gg to the opponent. Sometimes this isn't the case, but if a player is taking the time to actually improve their skills, this is pretty telling that they want to minimize their loses and win more games.

But of course, I'm making generalizations here, and most people probably fall somewhere in the middle of all this.

Do you as a player care about winning or losing, or does it not matter to you? Do you enjoy playing more casual settings, or strategic settings? Where do you fall in all this? Personally I consider myself casual-competitive. I hate losing and took the time to become a "decent" player, and I prefer RoR and strat templates over all other templates, so I'm sort of a mix of both of these stereotypical mindsets.

Edited 8/7/2018 04:07:33

I have a ninja mindset. Does that work?

Yes

Din't you retire?

Me?

"They often prefer manual picks over auto, and warlords distribution over full. "

Just to clarify - random warlords, not static. Static warlords has the same flaws as full distribution where it devolves into rock paper scissors after enough games.

Me personally, I don't care much about "winning". I do however care about playing well. That is to say, I do consider myself competitive, but for example, I wouldn't try to avoid good opponents to pad my winrate, etc.

I am not sure the OP, when talking about "competitive players", is actually referring to competitive players, or just players who like to pad their stats. I think the the comments about "competitive players" " prefer manual picks over auto, and warlords distribution over full " is a real tell.

I am a competitive player but I prefer random teams and auto-distro in all of my games (well maybe not when I play Biomes). Why? Because I am looking for a competitive game, rather than a game that maximizes my chances of winning.

What is a competitive game? A game which is a challenge, a game whose outcome is not preordained at the start. A game, where if I make the right choices, I will win, and if I make the wrong choices, I will lose. A game where every player, every team, has a reasonably equal chance of winning. If that is the criteria, then random teams and auto-dist are effective ways of creating a level playing field, where every player has a reasonable chance of winning.

On the other hand, there are players who are interested in padding their stats. These players, it seems, like to host the same template all the time, with manual teams with Team A usually filled with their friends, and with manual picks. As these players know each other, they usually know how to pick starts in a complimentary way to maximize map coverage, income denial, and growth. Then they wait for 3 unsuspecting players to wander into their game, who they promptly beat. No surprise as Team B likely has never played together before, likely won't pick in a complimentary manner, and likely will include one more more inexperienced players.

I don't think players hosting these games should be called "competitive". These games certainly are not competitive -- an experienced cadre against effectively 3 noobs, what's the challenge there? To me this seems "anti-competitive".

When I see games hosted by " "competitive" " players with Team A stacked, I steer clear, although I know I am more than capable of winning those games if I bring along my team of experienced players. I've got 8 tourney 1st places on my profile to prove it, and oddly enough, I have only played the OP in these tourneys, and in all 3 games, my team of experienced players beat the OP's team.

------------

p.s. I suppose that if you are looking for a single game fair competition, manual picks are required (not sure about random-warlord). But if you are going to play more than one game, random picks are perfectly fine. Yes there will be games where you are unlucky with your starts and can't win. But the luck balances out, and on average, everyone's starting spots will be the same over the long run.

I am a competitive player, I prefer auto-dist and random teams.

-----------------

p.p.s. I think the ladders are a great way to test yourself against players of similar skill level, and a great way to rank your skill at a particular template against others. I still prefer auto-picks, but the ladder requires manual picks.

Edited 8/17/2018 21:27:03

"When I see games hosted by " "competitive" " players with Team A stacked, I steer clear, although I know I am more than capable of winning those games if I bring along my team of experienced players. I've got 8 tourney 1st places on my profile to prove it, and oddly enough, I have only played the OP in these tourneys, and in all 3 games, my team of experienced players beat the OP's team."

All those tournaments are Ror with full dist. It's non-strategic garbage. It's memorizing the best picks and picking them every game. Good job.

There were also 3-4 decent opponents combined in all 8 tournaments.

You didn't beat "stacked" teams. You beat bad teams and mediocre teams.

"Only played the OP"

My ass. The only games I see where played anyone good you got rekt:

shadowclaw, Xenophon, and Waddles defeated Berenbossen, Gus squared, and Keyser Soze (expired)
12904715 2/28/2017 23:59:51

Beren • apex, master of desaster, and Holdway defeated Berenbossen, Gus squared, and Keyser Soze (expired)
13252807 4/20/2017 19:41:16

MIFRAN, Buns157, and culpa defeated Berenbossen, Gus squared, and Keyser Soze (expired)
13353317 5/4/2017 05:59:38
lronEyes, Gormination, and DottZero defeated Berenbossen, Gus squared, and Keyser Soze (expired)
13336610 5/4/2017 03:45:15

Edited 8/18/2018 14:49:54

I never play to win, but I’ve also never lost. So which category am I in?

The “You’re Invited to my VIP Yacht Birthday Party Next Summer” category!

Aw sick. Do I get a +1?

Me?

Yes, you.

Hell no. You should be happy you get invited at all.

@Nauzhror, OP = Original Poster

I think you might have thought I meant Over Powered.

Let me rephrase the part of my post you objected to. What I was pointing out is that the only 3 times I played the Original Poster, who has a 3v3 record of 790 / 928 (85%), was in tournaments and my team beat the OP's team.

p.s. about the full-dist RoR tourneys, I mostly agree with you, picking on RoR is about memorizing the best picks/combos, along with making sure your team has good map coverage. Did I mention that I prefer auto-distribution/random picks? I am pretty sure I did.

p.p.s. It took me a while to figure out why you reacted so strongly, and so off-base, to my post. You actually went and looked through all of my past tournaments? Then I realized you thought I meant Over Powered when I wrote OP. It is kind of funny that your disagreement with me is based on a misunderstanding over what I meant by OP. Because other than that, I think we are pretty much on the same page on this issue.

p.p.p.s. Nauzhror, how did you find those games that you listed? I went to look for them, and actually went through my tournaments, and I can't find them? How did you find them? Is there a search function that I don't know of?

Edited 8/18/2018 20:36:39

I did misunderstand what you meant, I apologize for that. I have seen OP used to mean original poster, but based on the context I thought you were saying overpowered and took it as bragging that you'd beaten all the "top-tier" teams in the tournaments.

The games I referenced were from your 3v3 ladder run where you played vs. a few top teams and didn't fare very well.

I don't really have a problem with everyone in the game being at different skill levels, I also don't have a problem with helping people improve at the game, but it rubs me the wrong way when people brag and boast about being a lot better than they are - which was the way I initially read your post. That largely seems to have been a misunderstanding though, I don't think you are a "bad" player, I just didn't think the tournaments your profile showed had overly stiff competition. There were a handful of good players in the tournaments, but three good players on a team doesn't necessarily equate to a good team in team games.

Nauz, thanks for the reply, and the clarification, I appreciate it.

If you think about my bragging about tournaments, it really was damning with faint praise. We both agree, it is not hard to put together team of experienced players for a RoR tournament and do well. It is also not that hard to beat a team of experienced players if you put together your own team of experienced players.

My main point of my original post was that to me it doesn't seem very competitive to host manual team games where Team A is stacked with experienced players and Team B is filled with whomever wanders in from the lobby, or for that matter, whomever wanders into a tournament.

Personally, I like random teams and random picks, because I feel this is an effective way to level the playing field amongst players.

But as I also wrote in a postscript in my original post, ladders, which require manual picks, are a great way to find games against similarly skilled players/teams, and a great way to test/rank yourself.

And yes, on 3v3 Europe, my team is decent, but we need to do some work to get to elite levels. To my credit, on the 2v2 ladder my team got to 5th before we got bored and dropped out, and we did beat some elite teams along the way. I think your statement of

The only games I see where played anyone good you got rekt

misses several games from the 2v2 ladder.

wow. and they say you cant make friends on the internet.

Your 2v2 games are indeed much more impressive. Likely because the 2v2 ladder is mostly determined by play, and the 3v3 ladder is hugely dominated picks, and you're likely good at play, but not at picks, or at least not nearly as good at picks.

@The Last Kiss

Thanks for the compliment and the observation. I wasn't on the the 3v3 ladder long very long but with the little that I have played 3v3 Europe, I agree with your observation about it being driven by picks. I usually lose on picks on that template.

Expanding on the play vs picks observation, it is interesting how different players gravitate to different templates, and by extension, different types of playing, or different focuses on strategy. As I have mentioned a few times in this thread, I am a RoR, random start type of guy, because I enjoy higher incomes games which are more fluid and open-ended. Other players like the 1v1 ladder, but that template requires a lot of focus on picking, very careful opening moves, and tracking of where your opponent might be. It is a different style of play.

I think both styles are fine. I prefer RoR random starts, but props to those players who get on the 1v1 ladder and excel.

As of late I have been playing other templates, in part because of Cl, and it has been interesting to see which skills migrate well from one template to the next, and which do not. Short answer, RoR doesn't migrate well to most other templates.

I don't mind the Rise of Rome map itself, but I detest the settings most people play it with. I'd prefer auto-dist to the most commonly used settings. Manual Full-Dist in my eyes is non-strategic garbage, it's memorizing the best spots, and then playing rock paper scissors by occasionally switching it up so that you don't become too predictable so as to avoid the opponent countering the picks they know you will make.

Full Dist Manual on any map is pretty much a no-no for strategic play as far as I'm concerned. Same goes for warlords (as in, non-random warlords), every instance of a map has to be different or else it turns stale incredibly quickly in my opinion.

PS: I'm Nauzhror as well, just too lazy to switch accounts before responding on the forums.