2vs2 etiquette - what to do if your partner is a moron?

[SillySod]

Sad to say but avoiding four player games against random opponents is probably a good idea. I like four player games but all it takes is one idiot and suddenly the game collapses. If you stick to 1v1 games then...
- there are three times less idiots per game
- people are less likely to drop out because they hate their partner
- you only play against incompetent players, never with them
- when you do encounter incompetent players the game should go pretty quickly
- if your opponent disapears, quits, or is a jerk then you can declare personal victory (2v2 games are often less clear cut)
- you waste less time getting to turn 3-4 where lots of people tend to drop out

[Darkmage]

"You are too commanding!!!" is one of my favorite quotes from an ally I tried to politely help by **asking** him why he charged at night with Loyalists.....

This thread is now derailed into Bad Ally stories.

My worst was probably a guy who was recruiting HI and mages, mostly HI against a player who picked drakes. When I asked him why, he replied that they're the most durable unit and best damage dealing unit the Loyalists have. When I tried to explain about resistances, and why he was going to get creamed, he repeated what he had said with caps lock on. When I tried again to explain after a couple fighters and a burner mauled half his army, he said "HEAVY INFANTRY = INVINCIBLE ARMOR" and recruited another one, despite my repeated pleas that he switch to spearmen and bowmen. He spent the entire game telling me that bowmen were worse than mages and spearmen worse than HI in every way, and that HI could beat everything, despite the fact that I stopped messaging him after the invincible armor bit. That and complaining about how his enemy kept running away and then ganging up on his units when he pursued, instead of throwing his units at the wall of HI.

That usually happens... i once tried to teach a guy(we were on the same comp, i gave him some tips and so, local game), he said he would like to play loyalists, so i said ok, i got him those against a random enemy, fortunately to him he fought undead, well, i told him about ghosts, to get rid of them and take villages, and then, since AI only recuited skeletons(archers and normal), and a pair of ghosts, also a DA. I told him try HI and mages, are the ones who easily kill those, after easily losing an archer and a spearman of the inital recuit and seeing how HI crashed bones he came into a "easy" conclusion, HI are though-unkillable-not-very-expensive guys. I insisted that there were only on that case, other units may beat them as today's breakfast, he insisted and so so i just shuted up and told him to try a drake vs loyalist against me, and me as oponent, in local game, he said he had no problem, he did the same mage + HI recuit, he was beaten, so then after my previous now repeated explanation of terrain def and resistances he came to the now "easier" conclision that the game was highly unbalanced, so he won't play it.

At first i thought that i'm crap at teaching, then after your not-to-sleep story i guess is not just me.


To the topic i agree, we all have once been noobs, and since i still learning, the only ones who want to get better are the worth to teach to the basics and the others after a time will go away with the "easier" thought of game is greatly unbalanced, beacause loyalists beat undead and drakes beat loyals so drakes crunch undead(quite normal false thought).

Yes, also it has being said, isar's is quite typical game if you play others you might find an interesting gamer, and more variety of tactics. (by the way i said i simplily get doomed at isar's)

[Yoyobuae]

Those kind of players are the ones that just want to memorize an easy recipe style of playing to win.

That is precisely what happens in RTS games, learning the game consists of finding and mastering those hard to counter "tactics" which take advantage of the poor (or at least too straightforward) design of the combat system.

Someone that doesn't want to learn, never will. At least Wesnoth is very unforgiving when it comes to tactical mistakes. Therefore these it will eventually filter out these kind of players.

[Araja]

I had one match where my ally was convinced that ghosts were pure awesome, with their great resistences, high movement, good movetype, drains...how could he possibly lose if he made 5?

Despite me explaining about 10 times using 3-4 differant styles, he decided I must be blind not to notice how good they were, and then complained about those stupid godlike mages that have no balancing at all.

Sometimes, it's best to just give up, and tell the other players that "my ally has a very unstable playing style, I'm going to cut my losses and get out of here"

[Darkmage]

I had one match where my ally was convinced that ghosts were pure awesome, with their great resistences, high movement, good movetype, drains...

Heheheh i thought that way when i started playing this game, and after beign defeated four times i changed my mind

Despite me explaining about 10 times using 3-4 differant styles, he decided I must be blind not to notice how good they were, and then complained about those stupid godlike mages that have no balancing at all.

LOL the "easier" conclusion that the game is not balanced.

As said before, if the gamer himself wants to learn, after a while and some "hit your head against the wall" things will be solved for him if not, just try to do your best.

[TheGreatRings]

Those kind of players are the ones that just want to memorize an easy recipe style of playing to win.

That is precisely what happens in RTS games, learning the game consists of finding and mastering those hard to counter "tactics" which take advantage of the poor (or at least too straightforward) design of the combat system.

Someone that doesn't want to learn, never will. At least Wesnoth is very unforgiving when it comes to tactical mistakes. Therefore these it will eventually filter out these kind of players.

Which is part of why, as much as I enjoy Age of Empires, I consider Wesnoth a superior game overall.

[donkey_noob_trash1]

I've got a great story to tell...

So, this one time, I'm playing Isar's. I'm undead, my ally chooses loyalists. He recruits a bunch of guys and sends them immediately out to the middle. This was back before the starting time was set to random, btw. And it was on the old, tiny Isar's. I can't remember how it went, exactly, I just remember that all his guy were out there, fighting both enemies while my guys were sitting on villages, and in their defensive stance, preparing for a night assault. Long story short, he plays terribly, gets completely over-run, then says "thanks for all the support" or something. I told him about day/night cycles and how they work. At first he was defensive, but he eventually came around to what I had to tell him.

Oh wait... that was me... a little over a year ago Yah, I sucked BAD. Or, I sucked much worse than I do now, at least Anyhoo, the guy was very polite and helped me learn a very important lesson about ToD. After that, my game was hugely improved. I also learned to coordinate and communicate my plans much more after that. But it probably wouldn't have been a learning experience if he had been all defensive and rude.

Anyways, these are great stories. I've probably made all these mistakes myself at one time or another. There is a reason, after all, that my name is donkey_noob_trash

[Velensk]

I once had a partner who recruited 3 mages, a wose, and a shaman on a large map. What was scary is that he actually won (I won by match-up too, but it took me less time to do so).

Now admittedly, his enemy was even worse. He did a leader rush on a map with multiple keeps, then after forcing my ally off his forward keep he forgot to recruit. I would have felt sorry for his partner, except that in that case, you really should remind your ally.

EDIT: to elaborate, the enemy he was across from choose northerners.

[Araja]

My System for dealing with idiots roughly translates to:

1: What are you doing?
2: Isn't that unbalanced?
3: Try something else, because I think your going to be killed.
4: OK, I'll see how this goes.
5: You were slaughtered, so try another strategy.
6: It's clearly not going to work!
7: Oh who cares...
8: Bye.

[Velensk]

I personally try to stick it out unless my ally is being rude, if that is the case I kick him (assuming I'm host)

It occasionally pays out. In the example I mentioned we won that game where if I had left after my allies entire force was demolished and all his villages were taken I would have lost. Now sure he only won because his enemy was even more foolish, sure he won because I helped him, but I can't tell you how immensly satifying that game was.

Besides, I always found it immensly annoying when my allies spoke down to me or suddenly left when I was new, and I would not be that kind of person given the choice. Many of them were not even as 'polite' as Araja.

[anakayub]

If I play with an undetermined partner, it means that I'm prepared to play with a moron, i.e. I'd just suck it up. I'll give him advice, or ask if he needs any, and I'd respect his decision to not follow it. I'd expect my partner to give the same respect if I don't want to follow his advice. People get better with advice and making their own mistakes.

If I don't want to play with a moron, I'll just play with a predetermined partner. Or I'll just make myself my own partner, but that'd make it double-moron.

Wesnoth's trust MP system at it's best, as I like it.

[Pentarctagon]

kind of on the flip-side, what do you do if your partner assumes that your a moron? there was this one CHI match in particular from the very beginning my partner would put a bunch of labels on the map like "recruit fighter here" or "move wose here" . most of the labels were what i was gonna do anyway, but when i made those moves he was like "your welcome for the idea" or something along those lines .

[Gambit]

It's simple really. Label the enemy leader "kill this guy" and then let him have the honors. And then "you're welcome for the idea".

[Caphriel]

On the premise that two minds are better than one, I often drop labels with suggestions all over the map, just to point out things that my ally might not have thought of. I usually form them as questions, though (i.e., "Fighter here?") to make it clearer that I'm not trying to play my ally's units.

[donkey_noob_trash1]

On the premise that two minds are better than one, I often drop labels with suggestions all over the map, just to point out things that my ally might not have thought of. I usually form them as questions, though (i.e., "Fighter here?") to make it clearer that I'm not trying to play my ally's units.

In the context of the title of this thread (what to do if your partner is a moron?), I'd like to mention that Caph and I usually play together when he is on. You can connect the dots