Why do people quit playing?

[Sapient]

Fosprey-- So instead of heeding my warning, this is how you respond? Feigning ignorance will not win any sympathy from me.

*sigh*
I would have been happy to explain my position as a moderator if you asked me sincerely in a private message, but instead you wanted to turn this into a public spectacle.

And while you may think I'm carrying out some vendetta against you because of my opinion of randomness in the game, but the fact I'm only requesting that you post in a productive and polite manner to this forum. Instead you respond like this. Consider this a final warning to knock it off.

{edit: moving to Off-Topic where it (apparently) belongs... }

{edit: moving back to User's Forum as requested by Noy... }

[tsr]

It is not my intention to make an inflamatory comment, I'm merely interested in an experiment.

How about organizing a ToC in 3 months? And let's see if Fospray can do an 'ereksos' (without the time-dragging , and an actual final). If s/he can do it, I actually believe that some of the points in this thread have merit.

As for the thread in general I still believe that the question is badly put (since the ones that actually quit, aren't on the forums), the question to be asked is: Why do people continue playing?

/tsr

[Wesnothian]

I think people quit playing because:

1. The game isn't what the player expected to be (ex: expected a real-time fighting game, or better graphics, better gameplay, etc). Mostly these kind of quitters will uninstall the game when they notice that it isn't what they expected to be and these kind of players don't pay attention to the Wesnoth screenshots, trailers, or overview about the game, they just click and download it without any information then knowing it's an fantasy game. It could be aswell that they don't like certain aspects of the game.

2. They eventually get bored about the same process they follow in Wesnoth, or just want to quit because
they simply get bored of it.

3. They found another game where they are hooked on and leave Wesnoth for good.

4. They simply suck at it or can't get any better, or get frustrated by getting unlucky alot or now knowing
alot of tactics/strategies, or get beaten alot by alot of players, aswell as the computer.

To bad that none of these affects me, I'm a proud Wesnothian
since my first date with Wesnoth.

[bert1]

Why I stopped playing....

1v1s: The last three 1v1s I played I didn't enjoy:

Game 1: vs Gallifax, Hamlets, drakes (me) vs Galli (northerners). I got an early kill, was hoping Gallifax would attack me back. He didn't, he retreated and consolidated. I lost the will to carry on, as I knew it would take hours if I played properly. I made an all out attack and lost.

Game 2: As game 1, except on Blitz. Different opponent and factions, but same idea.

Game 3: This time I decided to make sure I had enough time to play properly and really try to win, just like I had seen the pros play in the tournament. It was Den of Onis. Again, I got an early kill. My opponent retreated. I wanted to chase him, but decided that it was the wrong thing to do and I should build on my advantage. I retreated. My poor opponent lost the will to live and said: "This is going to take forever, shall we call it a draw?" I accepted.

All this means is that I don't enjoy 1v1s, or only 1v1s in which my opponent is aggressive. For me, it seemed the patient player, or the player with more free time, wins (all other things being fairly equal). Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you're a patient player with lots of free time. I do wonder, though, when I watched some of the TOC replays, if the players involved really enjoyed some of the marathon games that happened. I'm thinking particularly of Pietro on Hamlets (can't remember his opponent) undead vs loys (I think) where they charged up and down the field turn after turn after turn with no fighting. Eventually his opponent lost patience, broke formation and lost the game.

I tried making a small 1v1 map that would make it impossible to have a long game, but it was hard to balance and I gave up. I might try again.

2v2s: Simply lack of time made me stop. I enjoyed these far more than 1v1s. Of course, they can take a long time too. But there is normally an observer willing to take over a side if you want to leave. And there is more banter. And it is more likely that there is an unbalance in the skill levels, or the tactical habits of the players which means that the game remains dynamic and interesting. Everyone seems to want to get on with it a bit more. Maybe the maps are a bit more dynamic, for some reason. Loris River was my favourite. Also the atmosphere of 2v2s seemed a bit lighter, less gladiatorial than 1v1s.

I still play Isars occasionally.

[AI]

I tried making a small 1v1 map that would make it impossible to have a long game, but it was hard to balance and I gave up. I might try again.

Isar's Line?

I still play Isars occasionally.

Apparently so, though 'line' is probably a bad name. Also, it's hard to balance because it's so small, just like isars.

[bert1]

Isar's Line?

Actually, no, I haven't even seen that one. I'll keep an eye out. The map I made never even got as far as the server or the forums before it got wiped in a Wesnoth upgrade.

[AI]

Erm, that was a name suggestion.

[Doc Paterson]

A few things:

In my experience, 1v1 time usage breaks down roughly like this:

noob: 10-15 minutes.

bad player: 15-30 minutes

good player: 45-90 minutes

great player: huge variance, but I'd guess an average of 60-120 minutes.

Bert1: I think that success at a high level can be achieved by caution and rigorous analysis, but it can also be achieved by developing a "sense" of where the match will end up, long term (no matter what the losses) once you make things dynamic. The second is closer to the path that I've taken, and while I've found that rigorous analysis will at times be important, the overall flow and excitement level of the game makes it a better experience. (This may sound odd, but it's difficult to describe, so I will say:) I feel at times as though I'm visualizing the entire game from the past, present and future, manipulating a sort of framework in which local RNG deviations are never all that surprising. I find often that if you can suck someone into the gravity of a short term gain, and keep your own moves fluid, you will find a break, take a key village somewhere, start to reinforce that overall goal. You may find some opponents more likely to blame luck when losing to this sort of style, as they may fail to see the overreaching process of the win, and focus on local deviations in EV that, in their mind, turned the tide. Of course there are degrees; I'm not saying go in there thinking you're the Blind Master and start moving units randomly to try to throw your opponent off, but certainly there does need to be an element of unpredictability, something that your opponent will want to try to punish. I think people who recruit in a "machine" style also tend to be disappointed by luck- They think, "Okay, here's this piece of my attack, and here's this other piece and this other piece- First this piece will do this, then this piece will do this, then this will happen, and I'll do the most damage possible while taking the least retaliation damage. (incidentally, I think this is the #1 reason people have such a hard time in the northerner/drake matchup...They spend gold on archers to avoid retaliation damage, and are destroyed when the sun comes out and the archers evaporate. {vanish under the power of heavy drake melee that is})" (Back to the subject though-) They count on the most likely thing happening at each step along the way, visualizing the completed whole of an attack where each different piece of the machine "clicks" with the previous and gets you that result of "success with low retaliation damage." Of course I'm not saying don't worry about retaliation damage and don't try to take advantage of unit variation, but I think that in general, players fixate far too much on this sort of thing, and lose sight of, for lack of a better term, the big picture, the real dynamic process/direction of the match.

I think that a lot of players who complain about luck are particularly prone to clamp off that semi-intuitive sense of direction that arises from past and (visualized) future turns, and to focus intensely on this machine-style thinking about the present. They will therefore often see the outcome as the result of only one critical juncture, a juncture where EV deviated from the norm and facilitated their loss, while they press into the background and/or greatly oversimplify the interactions (both numerical and strategic) and junctions that came before that particular junction.


Anyways, as I said this is hard to describe (and is really only the tip of the iceberg), and I'm not sure if I've done an adequate job, but perhaps some of this will prove interesting or helpful.

Bert1, I'll send you a replay of an Undead/Knalgan match that I did yesterday that I think touches on a few of the above ideas.


* * * * *

Oh, by the way, in regards to a 1v1 map smaller than the smallest in the official pack: I've had some interesting ideas lately, and there is something cooking, so stay tuned.

[Noy]

Bert I got a simple solution... you don't need to read all what Doc posted, just come and play 2v2s. We want to have you, we'll make it fun. You don't need all the pressure of 1v1s. Just tune in, turn off, drop out, drop in, switch off, switch on, and explode,

Cmon you know you want to.

[Iris]

Oh, by the way, in regards to a 1v1 map smaller than the smallest in the official pack: I've had some interesting ideas lately, and there is something cooking, so stay tuned.

I am doomed. I'll have to train hard awaiting that map's release-

[Uprising]

They stop playing because all who used to play against them stopped too.

[Thrawn]

They stop playing because all who used to play against them stopped too.

not always...I've been around for awhile, and I still see a few people from years past

[bert1]

Doc: Well, that match and your wholistic approach was very interesting indeed. Thanks for that. And I do see completely what you mean. In fact, I had already noticed something of this sort happening with some of the better players. I'm thinking of Dragonking vs Noyga on Charge in the last TOC. Dragonking was drakes and recruited 3-4 skrmishers when he didn't even know what faction Noyga was! He clearly had some kind of overall idea of how he wanted the match to go. Dragonking won quickly. I looked closely at the match to see what terrible blunders Noyga did, but I couldn't find any. So sensible, conservative play by itself is clearly not enough to compete with the best players. With my limited experience (probably only 20 or so 1v1s) I was still at the "don't do anything dumb and wait for your opponent to blunder" stage when I stopped playing. And I think that still remains the best advice for a noob. (I was going to do a vid about that Noyga-DK match, but I felt a bit at sea trying to analyse what exactly was going on in the match, so I didn't bother in the end.)

As for length of games: Most of the games I played were actually quite short, I think. It's just the tedious ones that stick in the memory. I can't remember having a boring game on Charge (as it was then). In the end the chance of getting a tedious opponent was too high for me to risk starting a 1v1 game.

Noy: I do want to! I just don't have time what with a new baby and a house to finish renovating. And my wife complains about being a Wesnoth widow.

[Jozrael]

Might I be able to grab this fabled rep somewhere?

[Cuyo Quiz]

I was going to do a vid about that Noyga-DK match, but I felt a bit at sea trying to analyse what exactly was going on in the match, so I didn't bother in the end.

Wesnoth battles pro-commentator would be awesome.