Board Game Arena

What do you think about a player that only plays two scenarios, only the side in which he has an advantage, and only 1 way?
It seems that the high interest on Memoir'44 has granted him a lot of candidates to lose the game.
That "cheating strategy" has granted him so far: 96 Games • 90 Victories • 94% wins, making him the 1st in the rank in just 3 days.
I consider that as unfair play, he doesn't deserve to be the 1st in the rank.

You can check his list of current Memoir'44 games, and his games history:
slywww2020
https://boardgamearena.com/player?id=85096311

These are the settings that he uses:

Game mode Normal mode
Game speed Turn-based • 2 moves per day
+12h00 per turn (maximum 36h00)
Duration 1 way The scenario will only be played once
Mode Standard Standard 1v1 mode
Scenario type Official Official DaysOfWonder scenario
Scenario [EF] [1311] Bug River => the largest number of games (currently trap laid against four more users, playing only as axis, yesterday more than ten wins)
Side of the first player at the table = Axis

Game mode Normal mode
Game speed Turn-based • 2 moves per day
+12h00 per turn (maximum 36h00)
Duration 1 way The scenario will only be played once
Mode Standard Standard 1v1 mode
Scenario type Official Official DaysOfWonder scenario
Scenario [BB] [25] Arnhem Bridge
Side of the first player at the table = Allies

At first I expected this to be a rant on luck.

But what you describe is indeed very low play.
In fact, I wouldn't even consider playing m44 only one way.

I can't wait for Arena mode to be enabled, that is the real deal.

Sure, the mode Arena will be the best way for Mémoir'44 to have fun, tense and fairplay

No fun to win Arnhem bridge 5-0, 5-1 with allied...
The real interest in this game is to win Arnhem with AXIS

And why not remove the "1 way" mode ?
About me, i don't play with an opponent if he selected the mode is "1 way"

Restrict one-way to training mode, or to scenarios that are believed/proven to be balanced, or to random side selection.

Jellby wrote: ↑11 June 2022, 08:00 Restrict one-way to training mode, or to scenarios that are believed/proven to be balanced, or to random side selection.

That sounds way too hard to do, unless there is an official list of balanced scenario somewhere ?

I think it's a shame to have as "1st in the all time rank" of Memoir'44, someone with this unfair play.
Unfortunately there is no way for reporting someone due to "unfair play", and he continues to set his trap for unsuspecting players, he continues winning on an unbalanced scenario as Bug river (1 way, only as Axis), and he continues getting more not deserved points.

Tisaac wrote: ↑11 June 2022, 08:20

Jellby wrote: ↑11 June 2022, 08:00 Restrict one-way to training mode, or to scenarios that are believed/proven to be balanced, or to random side selection.

That sounds way too hard to do, unless there is an official list of balanced scenario somewhere ?

I propose that the choice of the camp is systematically random with an one-way game. However, a table option can provide, once the camps have been allocated, but before distributing the cards, a change of camp that will only be effective if the 2 players accept it. Therefore, the game continues as soon as a player refuses the change, or when both players have accepted it.

Jellby wrote: ↑11 June 2022, 08:00 Restrict one-way to training mode, or to scenarios that are believed/proven to be balanced, or to random side selection.

Restrict one-way to training mode is the right way since Scenarios reflect reality and are not supposed to be balanced.

Second the restricting one-way to training.
If points count, no one would-should ever play one way.

What do you think about a player that only plays two scenarios, only the side in which he has an advantage, and only 1 way?

Why are gamers more insecure about how others play their games than those involved in other hobbies?