Why do people quit playing?

[leocrotta]

I just couldn't stop typing for some time, this is the result. Maybe it's far off maybe it's not
It might not be the reason to stop playing for me but it's just an essay that supports me in having my break started.

1v1s

1v1s: ... 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 ...

Patience is a big word in here. I personally cannot remember more than 3 to max5 serious 1v1s I played, in all the 4 years I know the game, which were decided after around turn30.
The reason for this is simple: If I won a match the win was obtained almost always by the element of surprise which implies I generally tend to be a rather offensive player.

Both facts gladly made me join DocPaterson's idea of having an ArchiveOfHodor. I really loved that one, too bad it somehow idled out.

I often told some players I talked with frequently that I at most had negative stats in the first 10-15turns, which wasn't always true of course, maybe I just won the ones
with non-negative stats for me quite early . But in fact I feel like let's say 75-80% of my losses were either due to negative stats (-25% whole and lower) in those 10-15 turns or
due to a timer set that wasn't suitable for my 'over-calculative' way of playing serious matches @Gallifax.
For the remaining 20-25% of my lost matches I have just been 'outplayed' and deserved to lose.

IF what you claim to be a "Far less skilled" opponent has better luck than you do, then you should still beat him anyway through superior play, which your replay proves already.

I totally agree on that one. To take this further I personally just detest serious 1v1s played by equal opponents being 'destroyed' by crucial (un)luck.
I don't care much about losing some game if I deserve it, but both players losing a game because of RNG running wild is just frustrating, nothing more.
I attached an example of a match that was pushed a lot by luck, this time in my favour.
This isn't intended to be offensive against the randomness of the game itself, I really liked it all the time, actually it wouldn't be BfW if it was deterministic.
So what I'm basically saying here is that this :

... Thats perfectly winnable... I don't think it matters much till you get into the hundreds off

is partly wrong. At first being off <-20% can be in regions of hundreds. In case of the matches I mentioned above it has been >100abs off for sure. (The attached one as an example)
How could that be perfectly winnable I wonder... There's really not enough time or space in here to start the discussion about "The factors of BfW".
Still I just want to submit that on the basic assumption of having a balanced map, balanced opposing factions and equally skilled players playing a "solid strategy"
the influence of the 'RNG-factor' can quickly rise to a value that is able to decide games.
So the question arises which factor is able to surpass this stats-disadvantage ?
Imo if it's not that crucial there are some of course. The most obvious ones are time and patience combined with basic strategic knowledge (simple: a regroup).
This brings me back to bert1's statement combined with a true statement by Gallifax:

Globally the player with the best strategic knowledge (assumed equal above) and the capability of being adaptive should win and will win in the *long run, whereas
adaption in this global case requires time and patience (and free time) ...making me lose in the long run.

*especially the unlucky days are part of the long run

the better you get at the game the less you notice luck/pay attention to EVs.

Well I just don't think so. Even the so called veterans are annoyed by unluck, but I feel like they learned to deal with it better.
Irony replaces seriousness ( @DocPaterson - you lucker) and hax replaces the word luck itself ... but it keeps being annoying.

2v2s

...just come and play 2v2s. We want to have you, we'll make it fun. You don't need all the pressure of 1v1s...

I totally agree on that. Basically while for me 1v1 is competitive 2v2 has different intentions and is fun at most, I loved playing 2v2s far more than 1v1s,
though it requires team-mates that know each other or at least are capable of having a conversation.

2v2s: Simply lack of time made me stop in the end. I enjoyed these far more than 1v1s. Of course, they can take a long time too... Also the atmosphere of 2v2s seemed a bit lighter, less gladiatorial than 1v1s.

Yes, the problem is just that good 2v2s really take some consecutive time which is hard obtain generally.
After the ladder has been founded by eyerouge I almost totally swapped over to 1v1,
just because my style doesn't require too much time in general. If a match swaps to regularity I almost always lose the interest and I get eaten by boredom leading to an almost voluntary loss...

I still play Isars occasionally.

I have been too actually, just because it seems to be the conclusion for me based on these 2 statements here.
It may be not balanced and small and whatever but it combines the fun of a 2v2 compressed to a rather small amount of time.
If the opponents are at least no 'big-talkers' I cannot remember being frustrated too much by losing an isars in all the time, it's
'just and isars' after all and if RNG runs wild it still will be, since the next isars is only 30min away.

(I avoid talking about mp-scenarios / survivals ... here, just saying they're in my case close to 2v2)

best regards, leocrotta (nani)