Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Maybe its a culture thing, but honestly, Id rather suffer a harsh defeat time and time again, then win due to a hanicap.

Its...insulting in a way when the opponent goes "I'd take less points, because I'm better at this game", I feel as if he's looking down at me, and even if its rightfully so as he has far more experience, its still an insult.

Handicaps only work well when an outside ranking system places them-without direct control by either player, that way you can at leas subconsciously tell yourself "its just the ranking system, I jst need to prove that I AM better then that"

So in a league system or something, where high places get a penalty against low places-it would be fine.
In random games, its better to crush people then to insult them. worst case, you see the result is obvious and you dont want it to be too crushing? let your last few turns be sub-optimal, or try insane tactics just to see it works.
You already know you would have won.

 Jancoran wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Maybe its a culture thing, but honestly, Id rather suffer a harsh defeat time and time again, then win due to a hanicap.

Its...insulting in a way when the opponent goes "I'd take less points, because I'm better at this game", I feel as if he's looking down at me, and even if its rightfully so as he has far more experience, its still an insult.

Handicaps only work well when an outside ranking system places them-without direct control by either player, that way you can at leas subconsciously tell yourself "its just the ranking system, I jst need to prove that I AM better then that"

So in a league system or something, where high places get a penalty against low places-it would be fine.
In random games, its better to crush people then to insult them. worst case, you see the result is obvious and you dont want it to be too crushing? let your last few turns be sub-optimal, or try insane tactics just to see it works.
You already know you would have won.

I applaud your willingness to take a pummelling repeatedly and yet still wanting to play me. However, you're not the majority. the majority of people who get beat like this start PREFERRING other opponents more their speed. And I dont wantthat to happen because I want to be able to play everyone and have them feel like Im not just trying to club baby seals. And when their skill starts to rise they can voluntarily handicap themselves.

The systme I proposed takes the difference between the two handicaps. So If I play a 100 point handicap and you say "I will also" its new Zero, by YOUR choice and we play on. But if you aren't READY to handicap yourself, you dont have to. So this ends in a mutually accepted differential. A the end of the game, you mark down the respective handicaps and move on.

So there is no ego to bruise here as long as both people can declare a handicap.

I'd also prefer an opponent in my own level, I'm not saying that I won't.
But the human mind has a hard time accepting getting pity and charity from others, and that what the handicap is in essence, some sort of "i'll go easy on you" pity.
Most people, AFAIK, would prefer to take a beating then being pitied on. giving a fight is better then taking a beating still, but being pitied on is the worst.