I am on my 16th straight loss and I need to be told where I can improve

[DrWreck]

So your advice is "If the cards are bad, don't buy them, don't play anything, just save and hope you draw something worthwhile"?

I obviously did not know GIA would come. It sounds like your advice is "Hope your luck changes". I don't want to misrepresent that?

Also please stop insinuating that I don't have experience with this game. I have been playing it since it was first published. I already had hundreds of games on BGA. This is just my first attempt at climbing a ladder.

But based on your sudden attitude, I don't expect you to bother. Rarely do people making such posts actually want to study, learn, review, analyze.

Take it for what it is worth.

Shrug.

In three different places you told me "You're not ready to be playing three player yet you need more games under your belt" or to that effect.

I got up 220th playing three player. I have experience, and I simply asked you to stop being needlessly condescending. None of your advice, which I have been actively engaging with, interrogating, and thanking you for, requires the addendums you have been adding where you insinuate I shouldn't be playing the ranked ladder.

Asking you nicely to stop isn't attitude, and I think you should look at how aggressively your tone changed, and why you took me asking for you to stop something nicely as attitude in the first place, to figure out why I might have been taking those statements as condescension.

Thank you for your advice. I will happily watch this replay.

[DrWreck]

[/quote]

Yep. Exactly. Well said, CHarliec247. But the OP seems ready to die on the hill of "I'll play the cards I get dealt because there is no guarantee anything better comes."

[/quote]

My exact words where "It sounds like your advice is "Hope your luck changes". I don't want to misrepresent that?"

How is that "OP wants to die on this hill"? It was a very straight forward clarification, not a push back, at all.

You are reading some wild things into my tepid, cordial, and straight forward words.

[FrankJones]

In three different places you told me "You're not ready to be playing three player yet you need more games under your belt" or to that effect.

Sorry, but no. You are badly misquoting me and stating that I was aggressive and unpleasant. Here is a direct quote from me from page 1 of this thread:

"Honest assessment: You might not be ready for 3-player games with preludes. I suggest 2-player without preludes until you have a better grasp on the card values and the tactical placement of tiles."

Notice:

"Honest assessment". That is polite, not aggressive or insulting.
I then said you "Might not" be ready for 3-player with prelude. That is very different from what you quoted. I then said "I suggest" you switch to a different format for the time being, such as 2-player without preludes. Suggest! How are you portraying this as unpleasant or aggressive?

You requested constructive criticism, received it from various people, but then continued to mostly disregard the advice, even going so far as to say (Paraphrasing here), "Well, what am I supposed to do, just sit around and wait for good cards", when in fact that is exactly what to do, and what the advice-givers in the thread were trying to convey.

Here was your direct quote, just so there is no confusion:
"Cause the thing is, I don't like soil factory, and I don't like Adapted Lichen. I don't even like Solar Power. But, those felt like my only plays. Did I have a better -line- here? Like, beyond clarifying which cards are bad/good."

You said this after multiple people had suggested a better line, but your reply seemed somewhat dismissive and seemed to imply an unwillingness to just wait patiently for better cards.

It does not matter how long you have played the game or how many games you have logged. If you are buying Soil factory and passing Giant Ice Asteroid, it's possible you have not yet grasped the true value of various cards. Experience does not always translate to increased skill.

[Also, many players, myself included, hit a "wall", and cannot progress any further. I am stuck around 300 in Race for the Galaxy. I fluctuate between 285 and 350. I have played the game over 1000 times. If someone, especially a high-rated player, tried to give me advice, I would gladly take it and soak in it, because, despite my 1000+ plays, I have hit a wall. There is something they are doing that I am not doing. It might have to do with card valuation. I am not sure - If I were sure, I wouldn't be stuck. And if someone said to my, "Frank, you have some leaks in your game and you might not be ready for high-level RFTG play", I would take no offense.]

One of the first indicators I see in TFM 2-player games of an opponent who might not have optimized card values and tag synergy and patience is when that player starts playing various dis-coordinated cards each generation and running out of money at the end of each generation. For example, an opponent will play Solar power and extreme Cold fungus and space station, without any immediate plan to play a space card, and without Regolith Eaters to put the microbes on from Extreme-cold fungus (which in itself isn't necessarily a great play, but situationally it can work), and without any card that requires one energy production. Anyway, when I see an opponent do things like that, I know I am going to win the game.

And, again, not to belabor the point, btu when you post a thread entitled, "I am on my 16th straight loss and I need to be told where I can improve", it might be advisable to be prepared for criticism and corrections of misplays. The opinion of strong players (of which several have spent a considerable amount of time helping you in this thread) was that several somewhat serious errors occurred in the first few generations of the posted game.

Further review of the thread:

Here is a direct quote of the second instance in which I made a similar suggestion, in context:
"Again though, this is why I recommend not playing 3-player with preludes. That setting (which should end in 9 generations, maybe even 8) can make [a player] feel rushed, and to me, just sems a lot like a crapshoot as people basically just play whatever they get without waiting for much synergy."

Again, nothing rude, aggressive or impolite. I said I recommend not playing 3-player with prelude, and that was not even saying it directly to you personally. I do not think 3-player with prelude is a good way to play terraforming Mars, and I explained why. I realize the majority would probably disagree; people love preludes. I hate them.

And that was the final mention I made of this.

So, what you said was three instances of my rudely telling you something was actually two instances of my politely suggesting something. In a thread in which you asked for suggestions on here you can improve.

Wow.

[FrankJones]

I got up 220th playing three player. I have experience, and I simply asked you to stop being needlessly condescending. None of your advice, which I have been actively engaging with, interrogating, and thanking you for, requires the addendums you have been adding where you insinuate I shouldn't be playing the ranked ladder.

I do not even know what the "ranked ladder" is. I am guessing this is a reference to Arena? If so, I know nothing about this. I have never played in the Arena. I have been told that all arena games have one specific format per season, and thus, I do not play in the arena.

All I said was that you might not be ready for 3-player with preludes. I did not realize that my suggestion would come across as saying, "get out of the arena", because, again, I did not realize that my statement had any inadvertent relation to the arena, or ranked ladder, or whatever.

As such, I do not know what it means to have ascended to 220th in the ranked ladder. I have a 500 expert-level ELo at TFM, and I win 87% of my games in the format I am most comfortable with - 2-player without prelude. I could/would probably crack the top 100 in the ranked ladder if I wished to play that format, but I do not.

Anyway, okay, so, you climbed to 220th. At your peak. And then you lost sixteen in a row, and came to this thread asking for advice. You have been given advice. You have been somewhat resistant to taking the advice.

Everything I said was a suggestion. You are making it sound as though I was trying to kick you out of a club or something, a club I myself am not even in. (Ranked ladder or arena or whatever it is you are referring to).

[RoyalRook]

Frank you are being really aggressive in a good and friendly discussion, just calm down let it be.

[FrankJones]

Frank you are being really aggressive in a good and friendly discussion, just calm down let it be.

I am quite calm. (Anything I capitalized was not meant to be taken as yelling. I am somewhat new to the forums here, and I didn't realize that a simple formatting bar is available to bold or italicize thins for emphasis, so I used CAPS instead. My fault. I realize that caps can come across as angry. I merely meant to emphasize key points.

Anyway, I was misquoted, and so I copied and pasted the actual things I said, which were constructive, polite, and innocuous. THat is a calm and reasonable thing to do. I also made reference to the fact that my own plays have their shares of mistakes, which I regularly discuss with a player I regard as a very strong player.

I am not sure how that is being described as aggressive or condescending.

I mean, why hasn't asked me why I don't play the ladder ranking or arena or whatever it is? One answer: (Among other things): Because I do not feel as though my experience and playing style and preludes knowledge has me properly prepared to play there to the best of my ability. (I also dislike preludes and 3-player in general.)

So, did I just condescend to myself? Am I being rude or aggressive to myself? Do we live in a world where it's automatically rude and aggressive to suggest that someone might not be ready for a specific type of format after reviewing that player's moves and plays in a couple of posted games?

I sincerely hope not, because that is a world in which teaching anyone anything will become rather difficult.

[FrankJones]

Frank you are being really aggressive in a good and friendly discussion, just calm down let it be.

I edited my post to replace all capitalized words with italics to indicate my intended emphasis and to indicate that Yelling was not the reason for my capitalization. My apologies to the forum for my sloppy formatting that made the post seem un-calm.

[Fugacity]

I did not review your game or read other comments, but I'll offer general tips (apologies if these are redundant).

1. Play good cards. You are probably playing mediocre cards, thinking they are good. Go memorize a tier list.
2. Get milestones. Start targeting one as soon as the game starts. It's pretty hard to win without a single milestone. If you get two, you are really ahead.
3. Plant lots of forests. Placed next to your city, they are worth 3 points and 1 income each. It's one of the best deals in the game.

Rules of thumb:
-Heat is useless, avoid any card with heat (unless you have Helion)
-Don't get power until you need it
-Play the board very aggressively - block opponents etc.
-Try to prevent opponents from using your forests
-Attune your timing to ensure you get the milestones and other bonuses (watch that 1st player marker)

That will get you pretty far.

[PotatOS]

I agree with everything Fugacity said, except the comment about heat. Heat production is very important. Moreso in 2p than in 3p, but still very important in 3p. In data gathered from high level head-to-head 2p games on steam ending in generation 9 and 10, the player that produced the most heat had a win rate of about 60%. The player producing the most plant/power had 55% win rate, while the player that produced the most combined mc income (steel+titan+mc) had a 37% win rate. I.e. heat was the most important resource to outproduce your opponent in. Note this is in games ending in generation 9 or 10. If we go to gen 11 or 12 plant and mc production starts outscaling heat production. For 3p this would be approx gen8,9 vs gen 10,11.

In 3p the effect is less strong, as you are more likely to find good events in the deck that will be played, and thus heat is less important for rushing. But if you are clearly rushing (i.e. you draw Ecoline) then finding early heat is super important. Mohole / Soletta can save your game.

[Sonid]

DrWreck I watched up to Gen 6 and a big thing that probably leads to losses for you is missing out on Milestones and Awards. Tharsis with a city prelude should easily be able to grab Mayor against Ecoline. You know they're going to be building forests and in fact you have plant production with protected habitats too. 30 credits to SP a city out and claim the milestone is totally fine for Tharsis in this case. You know the cities will be worth VP down the road. You also had the 3 forests down for gardener but then just didn't claim it for some reason and instead played development center, which let Ecoline pay 7 plants for their 3rd forest the next turn. That's an easy 10 points to miss out on which would've been a huge point swing between you and Ecoline.

I won't comment on the card selection as that's already been talked about enough. Even with all the questionable picks, plays, and skips I think this was still totally winnable at 200 ELO if gen 5 (or earlier) you got a city down and grabbed Mayor and then got Gardener on gen 6.

Good luck in your games