regularly playing maps that you could easily make 20+ orders per turn and real-time games usually last 2 to 4 hours = idiot.

X, i don't agree. rarely i get a pick over 18

Um, no.

There are about 30 bonuses on the Europe map. 24 are chosen at the start of the game. In my opinion, the best 24 starts are usually pretty obvious. Depending on the random warlord, you can usually rule out the Ukraine, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Romania.

So if each player is playing as well as possible, they should each choose the same 24 starts, meaning every single one of them should get a bonus over 18th.

If there are any variations, I would really expect them to be above 18th place. If there are significant variations between players in the order of the top 24, what that suggests is that the order you pick them in is pretty much arbitrary.

We all know the feeling on 3v3 Euro where you get 1+ useless counter(s) to a bonus that your teammate ended up getting. Probably, each of the 6 players picked those 2+ spots somewhere in the order. It's effectively random.

I agree with Gui's post 45 minutes ago (man this thread is moving fast), I prefer the Classic 3v3 with cities distribution, and am sad it has fallen out of fashion so dramatically. Frankly, automatic distribution with 5 territories each would be preferable to what there is now.

You are 100% correct Sze I don't know what I'm talking about, thank for that graph, it was good laugh. A tad rude, but I can live with that.
Saying the more players required the more skill required was wrong. However I don't think you can dismiss 7V7 or whatever as a skilless, or lesser form of playing.

I forget that this isn't an RTS or a FPS, that the most skilled or dominant player on a team can basically play for the entire team rather then just giving general game plans and orders, but the players having to have the knowledge, or reflexs, or skill to carry out those orders.
Which I guess is the problem that got brought up in the thread about an special rule tourney where no team or private chat was allowed.

I think with the right settings though, a 6v6 or 7v7 would work and still be a very strategic game, however I'll save that for another thread so hopefully this thread can go back to it original purpose.
Good luck with the games [WM] and ReLite, I'm very interested to see how it turns out.

I forget that this isn't an RTS or a FPS, that the most skilled or dominant player on a team can basically play for the entire team rather then just giving general game plans and orders, but the players having to have the knowledge, or reflexs, or skill to carry out those orders.

although thats true, there is still a time constraint on warlight (boot time), and players sometimes dont return to read the chat after they submit their order until the next turn, which is a pretty big disruption vector that promotes "independent thinking".

The games which require highest skill level to play effectively are those with ~2.7 players per team? Why 1.5vs1.5 require more skill than 4.2vs4.2?
This graph is really interesting :P

But jokes aside, I disagree with that graph, it make little sense to me. It depends on the template, not on the size of the team.

I will assign some points:
{rp} DagenDaDragon, Nosy kitty-cat • apex and ps +1 (all for both posts);
[WM] dead piggy +1 for everything except:

• 1v1 specialists are the masterrace of WL.

  Team games have some aspects not present in 1vs1. Team of 1vs1 specialists won't dominate in 3vs3. 3vs3 specialists are very good in 1vs1.
  

• Qi there is no such thing as "team coordination". I think you put 'team' in apostrophes because even you dont believe it.

  I had many games, where me with my teammate(s) together come up with better ideas, corrected each others moves, suggested something, etc.
  I have pity for you if you never played real Team-game.

Qi

• more armies (income) pumped into a map = less subtlety needed to play efficiently/smoothly and with good tactics and strategies
  give an idiot a big income and he'll do some things right. give an idiot a low income and he'll make more mistakes because every army lost or gained matters.

  Agree, but to some extent. With low initial income, being lucky at the start of the game is really important. Unless, like you said, bonuses values are small enough to counter it.
  

• 3v3 cities enables more picking strategies than warlords.
  The picking options aren't so limited and it is easier to ensure you get something you actually want.
  Too many games are decided by superior positioning determined by pick lottery and the lack of options (more picks, more warlords to pick from) to counterbalance this.

  Again, I agree in 75%. Too many viable picking options (or too big maps) make the game also a bit too random.
  

• how can you make long-term strategic plans if a second third or fourth enemy pops out of nowhere? with 3v3s this element is limited and is a stabler variable in long-term planning.

  It's still important and quite common situation in 3vs3, which highly influence outcome of the game.
  Whether you think it's a part of strategy or not, is another thing. For me it isn't.

I believe 4+vs4+ games are played less frequently than 3vs3 or 2vs2, and are worse skill-indicators also because:

• Team games with more players per team require more time, more cooperation, more people which care.
  
• The games are generally also more complex and it's harder to design proper templates and/or maps for them, where luck factor is small enough.
  
• It takes longer to master that template, you have more options to try, etc.
  
• The larger the team, the less depends on single player performance, so they care less about it, and therefore don't like it, agree with what [WM]Red said here.

PS: Why Off-topics are always more interesting than the topic itself?

What? 1v1 ME is where the strongest players play the most competitive games. That is where you need to be if you want to learn or be on the cutting edge of theory.

"3vs3 specialists are very good in 1vs1." 3v3 specialists absolutely suck balls in 1v1. They miss so much of the metagame in picking, and arent used to a sparsely covered map. Who do you consider a 3v3 specialist? Gnuffone and trollussa are the only 2 people Ive seen make the transition and when they started play 1v1 they truly blew. Psy is predominantly a 3v3 euro player, ive seen a few 1v1 games with him and he has no idea what hes doing (love you psy).

"Team of 1vs1 specialists won't dominate in 3vs3" Yes they will. Find me a 3v3 specialist who is as bad at 1v1 as I am at 3v3 and I will show you. Problem is that anyone who is a 3v3 specialist will end up getting bored because of the lack of skill required and competition and learn 1v1, thereby improving their 3v3 skills. Sze, Gui, Gnuffone, Trollussa, HHH(?) all did this I think.

wow you people actually study a game into such detail. I'm deeply impressed. :/

myhand, sze, gnuff, troll, me: we wanted to be better at 1v1 due to our pride. we didn't actually enjoy 1v1s more.

if wl's homepage had a 3v3 europe ladder and no medium earth ladders, i doubt any of us would have ever made the transition from 3v3 europe to 1v1 me. we did for selfish reasons/recognition.

and others play 1v1 me instead of 3v3 eu for the opposite reasons. there is a 1v1 me autogame ready to play at any moment. and if you want to compete in a public competition, you can only play medium earth. tournaments aren't as public as the ladders.

mainstream wl = medium earth

I didn't say you enjoyed 1v1 I said it made you a better player, better than all the 3v3 games youve played have made you.

a better player at what? 1v1s? yes. playing more 1v1 me games has made me better at 1v1 me games. better at team games? 3v3s? ffas? no. i got to #1 on the 2v2 ladder without knowing how to play 1v1 me very well. it was a natural transition from 3v3 games and the 2000 risk ffas i played on another site.

1v1 me games can actually make a player worse at team games and ffas. the strategies are different. use a 1v1 me way of thinking and you play worse in team games and ffas.

I didn't study it, I've just played hundreds of games on 3v3 Euro.

1v1 strat is good because it is the single most-played template. That means that tertiary strategies can be developed on it, and you don't have to devote a whole lot of attention, because it is so familiar.

Psy is predominantly a 3v3 euro player, ive seen a few 1v1 games with him and he has no idea what hes doing (love you psy).

Well, i must have played less than 50 games in 1vs1 Medium Earth and only one time with you 1 year ago. Judging my 1vs1 abilities on this single template with this very small sample is pointless. Also the whole range of possible templates that Warlight provides isn't summarized with the only 1vs1 ME.

I don't like 1vs1 ME at all and i won't pretend to be good at this, like i don't think someone who has less than 50 games on 3vs3 Euro could expect anything on this. Almost every time i see a good 1vs1 player, but clearly inexperienced in team games, joining a 3vs3 it's a disaster.

To refocus the debate i don't see any valid argument to say that playing 1vs1 games makes you a better player than playing team games. I even think the contrary, team games are much more complex because you can't only focus on your own play, you have to consider every action of your teammates and coordination is required to be efficient. Also you face situations you will never encounter in 1vs1 like dealing with multiple opponents at the same time with an inferior income.

I am so confused...

dead piggy said:

(...)who is as bad at 1v1 as I am at 3v3(...)

yet he has a lot to tell us about team games...

To add to the current discussion:

What 1vs1 me teaches:
- counterpicking
- smart picking order
- using order delay moves
- efficient expansion routes
- being agressive on board
- how to minimise rock/papar/scissors outcomes
- on higher level picking strategies have to incorporate psychology at some point
- finding dominant strategies in simple scenarios

What team games (primarily 3vs3 eu, but any good team game):
- efficient picking
- efficient expansion
- risk management
- how to minimise luck involvement
- efficient evaluation of any position
- coordination
- map balance
- using order delay moves
- understanding deeply how small changes affect the game (change turkey to 5 on europe and it'll move up 10-15 picks up)
- understanding opponents' position
- picking the right plan after pick (in 1vs1 you are either stuck with one plan after picks or have max 1-2 decisions around turn 3-4)
- finding dominant strategies in complicated scenarios (as Psy mentioned for example effective stalling with inferior income or playing 1vs3 with superior income is not really that easy)
- on higher level picking incorporates minimal psychology if anything, 3vs3 scenarios allow you to diverse risk in such a way that trying to counter is not needed most of the time
- how to give maximum resistance (more recoverability in 1vs1 meaning advantage requires more precise play to turn advantage into a win )
- more people = more fun? (except for boot thingy)


To sum up I guess it is in general linked to the discussion what makes the best player. I always used a very easy thought process:
The best player is the one that looking at a tournament page you don't want to be paired against in 1st round and you want him as your teammate before others. Using that rule of thumb, I'd take 3vs3 player over 1vs1 player any day.

x i just remembered i'm 3-0 up against you in EU 3v3s on my other account, yet you seem to be able to come up with so many strategies How did that happen :D

Your mother raped a homeless Chinese guy, around 10 years and 9 months later you joined warlight, and then beat me in 3 3v3 games. But I haven't come up with any strategies, you dribbling skunk :D

Hell's bells, you're worse than warlightvet.

wow thanks for talking a gamr that was what... half a year ago? You really are a rat and have no life to remember such an old game.

- Dicklover (or whatever your original name was) to warlightvet - 03/29/2013 00:01:42

Your mother raped a homeless Chinese guy

Gui i told you not to tell anyone about that day.
*breaks into tears*

Nosy kitty heard it from gui because he is nosy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNRNCk3YwqE 2:50

I'm sorry ... it's hard to come back from that, but I'm sorry.

Gui i told you not to tell anyone about that day.

Uh ... wha? Ironheart = pulsey? So confused.

Also, I'm utterly horrified that you mistook me for Gui.

what, these aren't strategies? :P

There are about 30 bonuses on the Europe map. 24 are chosen at the start of the game. In my opinion, the best 24 starts are usually pretty obvious. Depending on the random warlord, you can usually rule out the Ukraine, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Romania.

So if each player is playing as well as possible, they should each choose the same 24 starts, meaning every single one of them should get a bonus over 18th.

If there are any variations, I would really expect them to be above 18th place. If there are significant variations between players in the order of the top 24, what that suggests is that the order you pick them in is pretty much arbitrary.

We all know the feeling on 3v3 Euro where you get 1+ useless counter(s) to a bonus that your teammate ended up getting. Probably, each of the 6 players picked those 2+ spots somewhere in the order. It's effectively random.

I agree with Gui's post 45 minutes ago (man this thread is moving fast), I prefer the Classic 3v3 with cities distribution, and am sad it has fallen out of fashion so dramatically. Frankly, automatic distribution with 5 territories each would be preferable to what there is now.

dont you feel any shame about losing to a 10 year old, X?

and i'm not as bad as warlightrat, he actually went back to the games that were months old and looked into the exact detail. :P