Hey guys. I thought I'd share some info about a player named Madtown both for its comic value and because this guy seems like he needs knocking off his high horse in order to progress in this game. :P

His name is Madtown: http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=272382729

And the game in question:
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2759048

After his first turn, I tried to make a friendly suggestion that he may have been better off only taking one of his north bonuses, Dalmatia or Panoia, rather than moving in both but taking neither. At this point he got pretty defensive, saying:

"Really?"
"look at my bonus situation now."
"i ain't no greenhorn, son."

I noted that he could have had an extra 2 troops from getting a bonus earlier, to which he responds:

"trust me, I know what I am doing."

I noted that I meant no offense, and was only trying to make a friendly suggestion, and in response, he suggested that my starting picks were bad. Now they may be, but I didn't see a problem with them. I feel if I had had a bit more support from him we could have eliminated the red player. Anyhow, he started to blame me for my lack of success in greece, but when I tried to suggest anything to him, he responded with:

"tell you what, you hit even 10% of the total number of games I've played, we'll have a discussion. til then, stay alive."

So, I called him out. I said his play was bad. I also challenged him to some 1v1 games, to which he responded:

"An elephant does not fear an ant. You, son, are an ant. You lost your positioning in this game because of shitty picks, you just completed your first bonus, and you left your Ps completely without help. Your play speaks for itself. That's all, sweetheart."

Well, I have to say that I disagreed with his analysis. I offered him games, but he just kept coming back with "you are an ant, and an elephant won't play an ant". Seemed like a lame excuse to me... :P


Now, I'm not yet an expert, but I would say this guys play WAS pretty poor. He wasn't using "microattacks" where they seemed very appropriate, and he didn't seem to be considering the opponents objectives and likely moves when deciding his own.

For somebody who has played so many games he seems to vastly overrate his ability. I'm wondering if maybe such criticisms came from somebody with more games themselves he might be more likely to consider them :P.

Try not to lose too much sleep over it.

Indeed, don't worry, it's not a big bother to me. I thought my posting this could be useful to him in the long run, though.

I am not the most experienced, but why should he have to play you? Just because you want to play him doesn't mean you have a right to play him. I wouldn't expect someone who was clearly more experienced than me to accept my challenge, especially if I was being a dick, which you seem to be.

Also, your picks look like crap. His look fine to me, as do his moves.

For what it's worth, the orange player did not play well, either, so don't feel bad. You weren't the only weak link.

ArthurCunningham

"Indeed, don't worry, it's not a big bother to me. I thought my posting this could be useful to him in the long run, though."

I think you're just trying to be a dick. He doesn't seem to post on the forums much, so how would you know he will even read this.

I agree with coondog, don't lose any sleep over this. It doesn't matter in the end.

Barakus, you do not exactly seem in a position to make such assertions about which moves were better :P

Also, you seem to think I suggested he had some obligation to play me. Of course this is not the case. I in no way suggested he had to play me. However, he was making many bold assertion of his skill, and completely brick-walled any of my suggestions with apparently no reason other than that he had more games played than me, so he must know best. Surely suggesting a game would be a reasonable way of settling such a dispute?

Also, I told him I would post this on the forum and gave him the link. This isn't talking behind his back.

Not sure what Barackus is up to here, but I will base my conclusions purely on what I saw in the main chat (can't see team chat). Basically, Madtown was trolling you from the start, possibly thinking your team would lose and automatically blaming it on teammates (only natural, right?). You were, of course, offended and called out for 1v1s. He ignored these. Basically, he could learn some manners in treating teammates (constructive criticism instead of bashing) and you don't need to call for 1v1s the moment you quarrel.

What's so wrong about a 1v1-challenge? Isn't this a rather gentlemanly approach to settling a dispute? To show who ought to listen to whom? I for one would prefer a good and clean duel to bickering or name-calling any time.
*Let alone starting a forum thread...*

Madtown play was tragical :/