Player Habits ? Don?t be an Excuse Player

[doom_reaver]

Yeah I'll agree it's just not nice to have beaten somebody and beaten them convincingly then having them lament the fact that had they have done X,Y,Z that they could have taken it.

There's rarely an occasion where you've been so outclassed that you couldnt have done anything to prevent the outcome but highlighting your failures while glossing over your opponents excellence is pretty shoddy.

Generally my default phrase after loosing is Well played mate, you planned it well and took advantage of every slip and pushed me every step of the way.

[Unknown_Lifeform]

This comic strip from penny arcade seems oh so relevant to this thread. We've all met (been?) these people

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/02/14

My bad habit after a loss is to immediately start picking apart my game. While that may seem nobel, it took me a while to concider how it looks from across the table. But when the first words out of you mouth are, "I lost because I did X" it really isn't as cool as it sounds in your head.

I have to confess to being guilty of this myself sometimes. I tend to analyse what I did wrong to try and learn from my mistakes, how well my opponent played isn't a factor that is within my ability to control so I don't tend to focus on it. So thanks for bringing this up, I'll make more of an effort to acknowledge things my opponent did well in future, not only is it nice but chances are if they've just beaten me they must have been doing something good that I can steal and work into my own game

[Vondell]

Most of the games I've lost, I made a mistake (or a few...) and my opponent capitalized on it and beat me. I know this. My opponent knows this. Would I have won the game had I not made that mistake? Dunno...but I wouldn't have lost at that point in time. But, such is life (and gaming).

Most of the games I've won, my opponent made a mistake and I capitalized on it and won.

I've gone from being in complete control of the game to making a mistake for whatever reason and losing...and I've gone from having my army being decimated to pulling off a win-or-die assassination.

Most wins come from capitalizing on mistakes (in my experience). No matter how skilled the player, he/she will make mistakes...that's how the game goes. I'm still kicking myself over my last loss because of the stupid mistakes I made right before my end. My meta generally talks about everyone's games and how someone pulled a win from behind and mistakes that were made that cost players their games. I try not to blame anything on luck, even though my dice do hate me at times...

[MidnightFox0083]

My wife is the same. So I always try my best to CRUSH HER UTTERLY AND WITHOUT MERCY!!! Hey, you asked for it, babe.

The key word here being "try". She's got a bit of a ruthless, bloodthirsty streak when playing games and everyone else tends to be the bloody leftovers afterwords. ;p

[blitzmonkey]

I enjoyed the article immensly and I think in general, it promotes better players and better player experiences. With that, I know personally that bad luck was an excuse of mine for a long time. Why? Because I honestly had bad luck. Eventually, I bought some Casino Dice and they REALLY did make a difference. So yes, excuse players who do not want to see what they are doing to cause them to lose are problematic. But excuses can be valid. The word "mistake" is somewhat subjective. In a game based on luck and skill, a mistake and a great play is often a matter of rolling a 6 or a 7. Anytime you move a piece, it could be brilliant or a mistake. So I think the essence of your article shouldn't so much be "don't make excuses, learn from your mistakes". Rather, it should be "learn to take calculated risks and understand sometimes it doesn't work".

[WarpedWolf]

4) Poor army composition. Some models simply have poor abilities.

Maybe the more specific problem is not that some models have poor abilities, but that they don't work well with some other models.

To get back to the OP, the difference between reflecting on a loss/win and being an excuse player is attitude. After a win, I try to reflect on what went well in the game, as well as what went badly, and learn from both. Some opponents are chatty and willing to 'talk shop' during the game and afterwards, and some aren't.

[HeadHunter]

4) Poor army composition. Some models simply have poor abilities.

I'd consider that part of "bad strategy", as selecting the right units for a battle is part of your overall strategy. If models have poor abilities or don't work well together, that's bad strategy.

[PG_carnage4u]

Well people do need to make some bad lists, to learn what models work better for them and the combination of models they selected. - Having a good attitude on the game, and being OK with losing I think is very important. We all make mistakes and thats ok.

[Zwaggs33]

I do think that a lot of games are lost on mistakes made by the players. However, sometimes the dice just say no. A player could attempt to execute an assassination that by all rights should kill my caster, but through the luck of the dice leaves my caster at 1 hit box left and their caster standing next to a very mad gator. I have seen this happen several times to people, the most memerable being against a menoth player who had almost every model left in his force attack bloody, and fail to kill him by 1 hit box. And those models included 2 jacks, one of which was the avatar, and the testament with a ton of souls on him for extra focus. Dice sometimes just hate their owners.

[BloatThrall]

I see losses as an important aspect of the gaming experience, even if it's due to bad dice (usually it isn't). Most of the time I can figure out what I did wrong and learn from it, but if I feel like I was completely crushed with no chance of even striking back, I will ask my opponent what they felt when playing against me and what they think I could improve on.

[MathPasta]

Bad strategy.

I disagree. Some models are overcosted (There is no such thing as a bad unit. Just overcosted ones), and their abilities do not work well for their cost. Or they are poorly set for a faction.

Its an utter lie that all the models are balanced equally. And there is no shame in that.

[Hasten]

I disagree. Some models are overcosted (There is no such thing as a bad unit. Just overcosted ones), and their abilities do not work well for their cost.

Its an utter lie that all the models are balanced equally. And there is no shame in that.

By "strategy", HeadHunter was referring to the player's decision to include said sub-standard models, instead of ones that are more functional in his/her list.

That said, there are certainly times when you run into a list that you just don't have the tools to deal with effectively. You might not have built some wonky all-Cephalyx-all-the-time list, but for whatever reason you're up against something that really hurts. For example, as a Skorne player I used to take nothing (or almost nothing) but melee models, back before we had some better options. Running up against a Saeryn list was really painful. And yeah, you could chalk that one up to strategy as well. I've since started running more ranged models, and those matches were one of my primary motivators for doing so =).

-H

[WarpedWolf]

I do think that a lot of games are lost on mistakes made by the players. However, sometimes the dice just say no. A player could attempt to execute an assassination that by all rights should kill my caster, but through the luck of the dice leaves my caster at 1 hit box left and their caster standing next to a very mad gator. I have seen this happen several times to people, the most memerable being against a menoth player who had almost every model left in his force attack bloody, and fail to kill him by 1 hit box. And those models included 2 jacks, one of which was the avatar, and the testament with a ton of souls on him for extra focus. Dice sometimes just hate their owners.

And sometimes the dice say "OH HELL YES!!!" and crazy stupid **** works. I played a game yesterday where Karchev ended up within easy reach of eKaya. The only thing I had to put between them was my idiot feral warpwolf.* So I stacked Forced Evolution, Dogpile and warp for strength on him and charged, hoping to at best slow Karchev down. My opponent and I were both surprised when Karchev went down, mostly due to some really good dice rolls.

The point of the story is that the dice hate everyone, and in the long run, they play no favorites.


*I dubbed my feral 'Scooby-Doo' after a particularly disappointing performance. He charged & missed with every attack, even the extra ones I pushed him for. My arguses did more damage that game.

[HeadHunter]

By "strategy", HeadHunter was referring to the player's decision to include said sub-standard models, instead of ones that are more functional in his/her list.

Precisely. The composition of an army list is part of strategy. No player is to blame for a model being "bad" or "underpowered"... but there's only one person to blame for it being in an army list. Also, a player with a good strategy can still make the most of it.

[DevonV]

Then there are those times when an unbuffed minimum unit of McThralls kill all but 1 Daughter of the Flame needing 10s to hit. That's a time it's legit to complain about the dice.

I fired twice, while aiming, with Sloan, boosted, and rolled 4 twice. I blamed the previous cartridge for jamming the gun.

[Matthaeus]

Some excuses are valid. Like when you are told a half truth.

Don't blame the other party for not being able to read your mind when you can't even be bothered to get the info where it's readily available and think for yourself.

[MathPasta]

Precisely. The composition of an army list is part of strategy. No player is to blame for a model being "bad" or "underpowered"... but there's only one person to blame for it being in an army list. Also, a player with a good strategy can still make the most of it.

I agree that If you lost because you took AK to a tournament instead of something that can deal with more stuff and has better and less situational abilities its YOUR fault for taking them.

But lets say for funsies you took them and you lost because they simply are not effective is it still your fault?

Can a player "Magicaly" make them more accurate and more damaging?

[HeadHunter]

But lets say for funsies you took them and you lost because they simply are not effective is it still your fault?

Can a player "Magicaly" make them more accurate and more damaging?

A good player can get more out of the same unit than a player who's sloppy, inattentive, or unimaginative, yes. It's quite possible that a well-played unit with mediocre stats can outperform a poorly-played unit that's generally perceived as "better".

If a player is playing a unit for fun, that's fine - but then there's no excuse for losing, because victory obviously isn't what you were after. There are plenty of times when it may be more enjoyable to play something "sub-optimal" because it's more enjoyable and interesting. But then we're not talking about strategy, and we're not even on the same subject as this thread at that point.

[MathPasta]

If a player is playing a unit for fun, that's fine - but then there's no excuse for losing, because victory obviously isn't what you were after. There are plenty of times when it may be more enjoyable to play something "sub-optimal" because it's more enjoyable and interesting. But then we're not talking about strategy, and we're not even on the same subject as this thread at that point.

True. Sometimes you need to shake things up a bit.

[absent]

I've played stuff that is supposed to be bad for as long as i can remember, and have won with it. Perceptions are flawed all to often.

[Nayuka66]

I heard this and been apart of this sort of "excuses" guy on more than one occasion. I love how this is spelled out so you consider your actions more than the other persons. Self improvement is the best kind and we should all be able to do this at some point. But I understand why this is going on, Part of why I was soo much for a while was due to really not looking at your casters potential and (being a Steamroller kinda guy) not recognizing that you need to have a good mix of solos to heavy's to support to throw away units. Despite people LOVING some lists and playing in tier this can be really harmful to you in the long run as you need to have as many in's and out's as possible no matter what you think you could pull off with that one stupid move that ZOMG IT TOTALLY BOSS LAST TIME!! well it wont be now bc you have poured waaay to much into chance on the same thing happening again regardless of your ability to make it happen. Look at what you got and base that on your play group or a potential problem you seem to ALWAYS run into. Like i hate leigon for the main reason of the absolute sheer power some lists have and for me as a ret player is hard to overcome when limited with certain casters. That doesn't mean i haven't had good leigon games its just i need to prepare for it as much as i can (stop rezzing **** Thagrosh its 11 points pls god dont pop feat).

So look at what you got and if it don't work then you need to fix it soon if it all possible.

[Dan from Chicago]

Can a player "Magicaly" make them more accurate and more damaging?

Not every model/unit's advantages are immediately obvious in any given situation. A skilled player will make better use of subtle units. Applying the right tool to the right problem is important.

[Northern Ronin]

I've played stuff that is supposed to be bad for as long as i can remember, and have won with it. Perceptions are flawed all to often.

This is very true. You even play stuff you've said is bad, and still win with it.

[Dan from Chicago]

A good player can get more out of the same unit than a player who's sloppy, inattentive, or unimaginative, yes. It's quite possible that a well-played unit with mediocre stats can outperform a poorly-played unit that's generally perceived as "better".

If a player is playing a unit for fun, that's fine - but then there's no excuse for losing, because victory obviously isn't what you were after. There are plenty of times when it may be more enjoyable to play something "sub-optimal" because it's more enjoyable and interesting. But then we're not talking about strategy, and we're not even on the same subject as this thread at that point.

A truly excellent player understands that the game is far better balanced than many people give it credit for. They can take the units which are considered 'sub-optimal' and win with them because they can apply the units where those units are not sub-optimal.

[HeadHunter]

Precisely - I agree completely. All I'm saying is that people who don't know how to get the best out of their units shouldn't lay all the blame on the units.

[DaPreacherMan43]

What's worse?

a) the loser with an excuse or
b) a winner that offers no insight into where the game changed?

in 90%of the games i lost, in the informal debrief either with my opponent or a skilled observer, I have learned where and when my strategy went wrong. At minimum, someitmes it comes down to a die roll, or considering an option that i didnt think about.

[Hasten]

What's worse?

a) the loser with an excuse or
b) a winner that offers no insight into where the game changed?

in 90%of the games i lost, in the informal debrief either with my opponent or a skilled observer, I have learned where and when my strategy went wrong. At minimum, someitmes it comes down to a die roll, or considering an option that i didnt think about.

Frankly, the loser with the excuse, because they're the person who isn't getting any better =). It's not really what I'd call an "obligation" for the winner to detail exactly why the loser lost. In fact, that sort of behavior can be misinterpreted as gloating, so I'm personally reluctant to point out what I perceive as flaws in an opponent's strategy (in any game) unless asked. Secondly, the winner may not him/herself be able to identify one particular spot where things went wrong, in any definite way. Sometimes it's just an accumulation of slightly better board positioning and slight deviations of chance in their favor, over multiple turns.

-H

[PG_ThatRickGuy]

I would say that the vast majority of WM/H games end due to someone making a mistake, or a series of little mistakes that add up. I can't think of a single game, where I won or lost, that I didn't make atleast some mistake.

Even with sub-par units, as people like Abscent like to remind us of (really, you're going to table me with press gangers?!?), if you make less mistakes than your opponent, you are likely going to win.

The Great Bears for instance, are one of the best character infantry units in the game (IMO!) But if you put them out there into shooting range, or inside of charge range of something, they'll die with out ever having wounded a model.

AKs on the other hand have been relegated to non-tournament play as their functionality is rather limited. But even they can take out the Great Bears on the charge, and block charge lanes, and run to engage shooters, and screen other models (like the great bears!), and tie up fire/acid based attacks, etc...

Heck, even Kossites, the laughing stock of Khador. The esteemed huntsmen that are less accurate with their bow and arrows than a Manowar... fully encased in steam armor... shooting out of a shield cannon... while riding a horse...

If you use them poorly, they die and do nothing meaningful. But using careful placement, back arcs attacks, running to engage, forcing your opponent to wheel a flank and expose other opportunities for the rest of your army, etc... they can have a huge impact on the game. And sometimes they'll even roll bonkers well and take out some squishy support models.

If someone ever told me after a game, "I lost because I wasted points on unit X" I would stop them right there. Look at how they used the unit, why did it not contribute, and what could they have done better to make it work.

Heck, I wiped a unit of mini-feated Zealots off the table with a single Greylord Ternion model. My opponent was clearly not happy about it. But after the game we talked about how important model spacing can be, and how even mini-feated Zealots can die en mass to template weapons that don't target them. So any unit/model can come across as overpriced/sub-par if the player makes mistakes with it.

-Rick