Win Ratios

Pisskop

Goblin Axeman
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
315
Location
Connecticut
I was reading and it seems to me most people lose more than they win, and that that seems to be the norm. It got me thinking:

--How often do you win?
--How often do you pre-maturely quit a game?

I quit more often than not, and win two-thirds of what I play, give or take.

I will quit if I get bored, have a Large lead on the comp, or feel the game has cheated somehow (in my favor or not).

The lead typically is the reason I quit, however. Especially now that I try to attack earlier rather than latter. That said I am quite at home being peaceful until later, and do not need the lead.
 
Do you think so? I can count my losses on one hand, while I have played thirty games.
And I think I'm quite representative for the community here.
I'd say I win 90% of my games. 80% if you see the quits as losses.

Of course, players which play above their level instead of below it (Yes, I do the latter :mischief:) will lose more.
 
Not counting when my old computer quit because it could not handle the late game map and the early "games" that I started without intending to finish in order to learn how the game works, I have only quit one game without finishing it. I have lost three or four times and all the rest have been wins. However, I probably play well below where I could level-wise because I still enjoy the flow of the game at Noble and probably won't move up until Noble becomes boring. Since there are many things that I keep reading about others doing, there are still many things to try before then….
 
I've probably only out-right won 2 or 3 games out of literally thousands that I've started. I usually quit before winning if it is obvious that I'm going to win and I don't feel like spending 2 or 3 hours finishing it because the game gets tedious toward the end.

I also quit a lot of games after 100 turns or so if I just don't like the way it is developing. Doesn't necessarily mean I couldn't win, I just don't feel like I will enjoy playing out the rest of the game for whatever reason.
 
My hall of fame in my game says I have only won about 10 games with no loses. However, I usually end up quiting a game when it becomes very apparent I will win by conquest because of my size or tech lead of something like that.

If you count quits as loses, I probably only have a 10% win rate, but on the games I set out to finish at Monarch/Emperor, I probably have a 90% rate.
 
Do you think so? I can count my losses on one hand, while I have played thirty games.
And I think I'm quite representative for the community here.

Bullcrap!
At least, you would not be a good representative for me. :crazyeye:

I tend to obsess over the little things, for example:
Spoiler :
when finishing off a city's defenses I will hand pick slightly weaker units over healthier ones. If the chance of victory is some what less than 99%, your units stand to gain two experience rather than one. It's a small consideration to the point of minutia, but unfortunately Civilization seems to thrive on courting one's advantages, however subtle they may be.

Typically my interest will dwindle before I can get to a winning position. Mostly I just have a shorter attention span, which is at odds with my micro tendencies.

But some how the mechanics are satisfying enough that I keep starting new games, hoping to overcome some of my obstacles to victory. :)
 
I play games until I win them, or I quit if I'm really behind and don't stand a chance. I never regenerate a start even if it looks bad.

I'd say I win about 50% of the games I start (emperor level).
 
I'm on Noble level right now, just finished a Greek game with a Culture victory, and have been too busy with the civ3 GOTM too play anything else. Anyway, I've won all but one game that I've played, and that game was losing as China via Space Race to Arabia (by one turn.) Of course, Noble is quite simple, but I think I'll play one more game there before moving on up.
 
I win over 98% of my game with Better Bts Ai on Noble Level.

Now I'm trying K-mod and If I will survive with good ratio, I will level up.
 
I win most of the Emperor games I play, but I also regen, quit, or resign bad starts. For example, I don't think I can beat LHC Genghis, whose start is just horrible.

LHC Genghis? Whats that?
 
LHC Genghis? Whats that?

LHC stand for Lonely Hearts Club, games over at Strategies and Tips designed to help players become better at playing isolated starts. As you can guess, in all of the games the player is alone on their starting continent.


Premature can have many interpretations... I don't typically quit early unless my starting area is extremely poor. And I generally consider the game lost if my second settler gets destroyed, but even then I sometimes continue playing. I've never quit a game out of boredom. Of games I give an honest attempt at, my win ration is about 1:4, maybe 1:3.
 
I generally play a game with so many alternate endings it's kinda hard to tell... :p

especially if it's my first time doing something, like right now I"m going to try for my first space victory....
 
This subject is so touch-and-go to the point of being silly.

I win maybe 1 in 5 standard settings deity games. If I wanted to do it, however, I could pick leaders/maps/settings and win probably 4x as often. Would that be more impressive? More meaningful?

The same thing goes for everyone. We don't play the same settings even within the constraint of difficulty, so win % means little :p. If I only played noble from here on out I'd probably win 99% of games or more (rarely losing to the odd intercontinental-from-isolation sudden AP loss or something stupid like that). That isn't very fulfilling though.

Perhaps the best way to look at this thread is to ask players "what win % are you most comfortable having in single player"? Because let's face it; even the best could tailor a game to be just about impossible.

For me, I like to win over half, but if I start winning too many in a row I'll take on a hard deity game instead of tooling around on immortal or cooked deity games. Those are the ones I count as 1-in-5, and I use them for a dose of humility/perspective.
 
That approach suits me TMIT; I still find Monarch difficulty to be a challenge. So for me it forms a good middle ground where I can enjoy success, but still must be wary of defeat. A lot of the difference in opinions comes from varying playstyles: whether one is playing competitively or in a more casual sandbox format. I find that I personally relish a challenge, even if I am often too inept to face it adequately. :p
 
Well I was hoping to leave difficulty out of it. You can lie to us online, but not to yourself. If you are not happy or fufilled why would you play?

I play on monarch by default, but find I can usually outclass the AI well before macemen hit. I usually do not even have access to that crazy, fictional infantry until after the ai gets them. I trade for it. Knights, crossbows, trebs all day.

A premature quit is simply playing with intent to finish, then not for w/e reason. I am also aware that speed has a role. I play on marathon so much I am afraid I will be swept aside on normal.
 
Well I was hoping to leave difficulty out of it. You can lie to us online, but not to yourself. If you are not happy or fufilled why would you play?

Ask the players who do things like let themselves die while on a tactical insertion playing "kill confirmed" in call of duty MW3, or virtually anyone who cheats with nothing on the line but (now sullied) pride :sad:.
 
Top Bottom