SpielByWeb Forum Index SpielByWeb
http://www.spielbyweb.com/
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   Find a UserFind a User   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 Your GamesYour Games   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

"Kingmaking" question
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpielByWeb Forum Index -> Hacienda
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
IBX



Joined: 22 Jun 07
Posts: 214


PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:57 am    Post subject: "Kingmaking" question Reply with quote

Thought of this hypothetical at the end of one of my 5player tourney games.

Suppose you are in the 5 player final and the last player in a particular game. Players A, B, C and D have already moved. Player C is winning by a small margin over Player A in this game. You cannot catch Player C.

Player C already has one win in the tournament, as do you. You think you will likely win one more. You have enough money to purchase water and place it next to Player A's land to give Player A the win.

Is it a legitimate play to buy the water, give player A the win in the game. There is no good reason for doing it in this particular game, but in the context of the tournament it benefits you.


I'm not a fan of the concept, but I can see how it could happen.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
hagin



Joined: 12 Aug 07
Posts: 121

Location: Perth, WA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is generally why I dislike tournaments IRL. This is entirely valid tournament strategy. Normally when you play a game the only discriminator is "winning" vs "not winning". It doesn't matter how much you lose by (relatively or points wise).

In fact playing for position in a normal boardgame can lead to some undesirable outcomes, like throwing the game to person A instead of B because that way you come 3rd instead of 4th--an action I disapprove of IRL.

But as soon as you make the results of two different games relate to each other somehow or relative placings matter or points loss matter or a combination of all three it fundamentally changes how to play the game.

Some will argue that you should play each game individually to win and thats how I generally play but those players are ignoring the fact that the "goal" (in a strictly competitive sense) is to win the tournament, not the game, and thats two entirely different things.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
cpsof95



Joined: 31 Mar 06
Posts: 177

Location: Finland

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that tournament strategy may encourage some weird moves in one game, but I don't think you can prevent that. Unfortunately, this also gives an advantage to slow players who have more information about the results of other games.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
Kanga



Joined: 27 Oct 05
Posts: 1503

Location: Moe, Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a tricky issue, that does arise often in Hacienda tournaments.

In a recent 4 player final with Djura and koinski and almondralf + ? in it, the first 3 games were won by Djura koinski and the other player. The 4th game was a close battle between koinski and almondralf, with Djura no chance to win. If almondralf won, then the final would go to a 5th game winner takes all, whereas if koinski won, he would win the tournament.

In the last round, Djura had enough money to play a water. What should she do? If she played it purely to ralf's advantage, he would win. Anything else and koinski would win. Djura and I talked about it for a while, no happy solution. She ended up playing a water that gave her 4 points and almondralf 5 (or something like that), and almondralf ended up losing by a point.

We weren't comfortable with making the best move from the tournament perspective, which would have given ralf more points and probably victory.

I suppose that is where I draw the line, and it's highly arbitrary; I'd be uncomfortable making a move purely to benefit another player.

In the current 4 player final, we've seen another situation pop up, which is why IBX has made this thread I guess. I have a big lead in one of the 4 finals. Because of that (I guess), in another final, IBX has made a move that has totally killed me (it's on a stupid map, only one access to markts, and IBX put a water sealing me out). Without the context of me winning another final it is a bad move, because it hurts IBX as well (no points for the water). Even in the context of me winning the other final, it is sacrificing his chances in that final to keep me out.

The worst thing about the above move is that it's still early in the game. I've now got nothing to do for the rest of the game.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
Dobinator



Joined: 18 Jul 07
Posts: 383

Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've played that map now twice, and I don't think it's awful, just different. Being water blocked is an omnipresent possibility, and you can actually plan accordingly in the middle to get money from harvesting tiles, or score from placing water or using the existing water, and sometimes try to make a run for markets when other people are distracted or broke.

I'm not sure it's a good choice for lots of people, or for a final, but it's an interesting map that calls for different strategies from the usual semi-boring 11 markets two spaces from land no water variety that make up most of the games.

Now, if you're looking for a really bad tournament map, there's always this one (one of mine):




Although I will say I've enjoyed every game I've played on it. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
smlait



Joined: 16 Jul 06
Posts: 392

Location: alberta, canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good grief! Do the markets keep scoring as usual (12 pts for the 12th, 20 pts for the 20th, etc.)? That is one heck of a lot of markets!

On the tournament strategy note, I really don't pay attention to who's where in the standings (except, of course, to make sure I'm ahead of Linda - priorities, ya know! she keeps beating me in Reef Encounter; something must be done...) and I have to admit I'd be really annoyed if someone blocked me because of how another game in the tournament was going - mostly because it would never occur to me to do that to someone else.

So, if you do that, please don't tell me. I'll probably never figure it out on my own.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
t_o_m9



Joined: 14 Apr 06
Posts: 318

Location: Lakeville, MN

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with small milk. How do you keep track of what tournament you are in and what the standings are?
I would say it depends on who you are playing. Against Kanga, Rebelslayer or any other Australian, you do whatever it takes to win or help another. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
joaotorres



Joined: 25 Feb 06
Posts: 15

Location: Belo Horizonte / Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That could be "solved" if you could play the games anonymously. Until the end of the game you wouldn't know which player uses which color, so there would be no way that such thing could happen.

I guess it would be an easy implementation that could greatly benefit tournament gameplay.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
IBX



Joined: 22 Jun 07
Posts: 214


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kanga wrote:
This is a tricky issue, that does arise often in Hacienda tournaments.

In a recent 4 player final with Djura and koinski and almondralf + ? in it, the first 3 games were won by Djura koinski and the other player. The 4th game was a close battle between koinski and almondralf, with Djura no chance to win. If almondralf won, then the final would go to a 5th game winner takes all, whereas if koinski won, he would win the tournament.

In the last round, Djura had enough money to play a water. What should she do? If she played it purely to ralf's advantage, he would win. Anything else and koinski would win. Djura and I talked about it for a while, no happy solution. She ended up playing a water that gave her 4 points and almondralf 5 (or something like that), and almondralf ended up losing by a point.

We weren't comfortable with making the best move from the tournament perspective, which would have given ralf more points and probably victory.

I suppose that is where I draw the line, and it's highly arbitrary; I'd be uncomfortable making a move purely to benefit another player.

In the current 4 player final, we've seen another situation pop up, which is why IBX has made this thread I guess. I have a big lead in one of the 4 finals. Because of that (I guess), in another final, IBX has made a move that has totally killed me (it's on a stupid map, only one access to markts, and IBX put a water sealing me out). Without the context of me winning another final it is a bad move, because it hurts IBX as well (no points for the water). Even in the context of me winning the other final, it is sacrificing his chances in that final to keep me out.

The worst thing about the above move is that it's still early in the game. I've now got nothing to do for the rest of the game.


I actually think this is a good play for me, even though I don't love it. I don't think it put me too far behind the other players in this final (other decisions I may have made on this map might have, but the 12 pesos for the water didn't) and its slowed you down. You're the clear winner on the other map (by a large margin, if that comes into play), so this gives me a better chance vis-a-vis you. Sure, the other 3 players marginally benefit more than I do (they get you water blocked without the expense), but in this variant, it wasn't too costly because money is none too sparse (unless you get blocked Twisted Evil )

It actually came to mind in a different tournament game more along the lines of the hypothetical scenario I described above...
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
TMJJS



Joined: 17 Nov 04
Posts: 70


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not smart enough or willing to do the work to make plays like this, but I have no problem if players do it.
It is a tournament and not a regular game so some things should be done differently - maybe that's why I don't win too many tournaments Crying or Very sad

I play blackjack and there are several moves in a tournament that you would never do in a regular game like double-down on a 16 on the last hand since that's the only way to win, but is a horrible risk according to the odds.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
SiddGames



Joined: 07 May 07
Posts: 27

Location: Oklahoma, USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This topic comes up periodically on BGG, too.

hagin wrote:
In fact playing for position in a normal boardgame can lead to some undesirable outcomes, like throwing the game to person A instead of B because that way you come 3rd instead of 4th--an action I disapprove of IRL.


In your opinion, what should a person in that position do? Can't win. Do nothing to advance his own position? Don't do anything that harms any of the 3 players ahead of him (i.e., just work to stay in 4th place ahead of the 5th place player)? Just pass his turn? Attack the current leader, regardless of how it affects players 2, 3, and 5?

EDIT: actually, my own paraphrasing of your statement would be, "He takes an action that advances him from 4th to 3rd, but allows player A who was in 2nd to advance to 1st to win." It kinda has a different tone to it?
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
hagin



Joined: 12 Aug 07
Posts: 121

Location: Perth, WA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SiddGames wrote:
In your opinion, what should a person in that position do?


In some games it's hard to police. In other games its easier. For example, IRL we tend to play Age of Steam by this rule: ship a good that gives you the highest income and the least to anyone else.

This is because in the latter stages you could ship a good for say 4 yourself or 5 to you or 5 to you and 1 to someone else or 4 to you and 2 to someone else. In giving people income you can change the outcome of the game so the general principle we apply is that you should be trying to improve your own position, first and foremost (actual position not relative placing).

Games that can end prematurely can be particularly problematic. In the 18xx games, someone can drive themselves bankrupt. In Puerto Rico, someone can deliberately take Mayor and push all his colonists to his plantations to prematurely end the game. I'm not a big fan of this mechanic because when someone decides they can't win, who wins can be pretty random and it forces you to do things like decide if you want to maximise your position this turn in case someone decides to blow up when in fact that may give you a worse position next turn if they choose not to.

In Hacineda someone could decide they can't win and just keeping drawing 3 animals a turn to end it quickly. I for one would frown on such a tactic.

Quote:
Can't win. Do nothing to advance his own position? Don't do anything that harms any of the 3 players ahead of him (i.e., just work to stay in 4th place ahead of the 5th place player)? Just pass his turn? Attack the current leader, regardless of how it affects players 2, 3, and 5?


In many games its not really apparent until very late in the game that you can't possibly win (5 hour games where 2 hours in you realize you can't win aren't particularly fun for the last 3 hours). Unfortunately "playing to win" really is a subjective standard.

To give you an example, I played a Puerto Rico game once where someone ended the game by taking Mayor because that way they probably came second and next round they were probably going to come third (since you don't know people's exact scores in PR unless you're some kind of VP counting Rainman). Now I didn't agree with that because in my assessment they had a chance of winning on the next turn. Not a huge chance but definitely worth playing for.

In my opinion there are only two positions: win or lose. Once you start playing for 3rd, 4th, 5th certain games start to break down.

In tournaments its entirely valid to do but it makes certain games much less enjoyable. Theres a Settlers of Catan tournament near where I live that I went to once (and never again). You find things in there like the scores are 5, 4, 3 and 2. The 4 player will decide the 5 is going to win so will trade with them so they do win and he locks in a solid second (typical scores will be 10, 8, 5, 5). It's a valid tactic but I won't no part of that kind of game.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
smlait



Joined: 16 Jul 06
Posts: 392

Location: alberta, canada

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hagin wrote:
In my opinion there are only two positions: win or lose. Once you start playing for 3rd, 4th, 5th certain games start to break down.


That's one way to look at it, but many of us don't. Personally, I'd much rather finish second than fifth and I'm not about to stop playing (or just tread water so that nothing I do can possibly affect any of my opponents) just because first place became unattainable.

It's not about "playing for second"; it's about "playing to do the best I can". Personally, I'd rather play at a table where most players will have "won" in some way than a table where everyone-but-one loses. I like the small victories: "I actually finished ahead of Player X? Cool!" "That's my best score yet!" or even "Yay! I wasn't last!"

hagin wrote:
In tournaments its entirely valid to do but it makes certain games much less enjoyable. Theres a Settlers of Catan tournament near where I live that I went to once (and never again). You find things in there like the scores are 5, 4, 3 and 2. The 4 player will decide the 5 is going to win so will trade with them so they do win and he locks in a solid second (typical scores will be 10, 8, 5, 5). It's a valid tactic but I won't no part of that kind of game.


Now, this *is* going too far. After all, I'd rather finish first than second. But I don't know that it's much worse than deciding at that point that the player with 5 points will win and refusing to trade with him (even on trades that would benefit you more than him) for the rest of the game.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
Kanga



Joined: 27 Oct 05
Posts: 1503

Location: Moe, Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a very tricky question. IRL games it's very much up to an individual playing group to decide how they want to play.

My philosophy is that you are always trying to play in a manner that gives your best result. Obviously you want to win, and while you have a chance at winning you should always try for that. Like hagin, I would find it very hard to play in a format that encourage people playing for minor placings at the expense of winning.

One of the reasons I chose the points difference instead of 2nd/3rd/4th placings in the Hacienda tournaments was to encourage people to get as close to the winner, rather than focusing on minor placings.

If we go back to IBX's original question, the answer is something that probably requires group consensus. I would prefer to avoid blatant kingmaking plays as given as an example by IBX, as it penalises the players who win early finishing games. I suppose that means I'd prefer the games to be played in isolation (I quite like the anonymous names suggestion above).
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
SiddGames



Joined: 07 May 07
Posts: 27

Location: Oklahoma, USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hagin wrote:
SiddGames wrote:
In your opinion, what should a person in that position do?


In some games it's hard to police. In other games its easier. For example, IRL we tend to play Age of Steam by this rule: ship a good that gives you the highest income and the least to anyone else.


I've only played AoS once so far, but aren't you basically saying here: I may as well write a script to make my decisions for me? As smlait observes, I don't find "treading water" appealing just because I am out of contention for first place. I will generally advance my score relative the current leader as much as possible. If I lose 3 points on 2nd thru 4th place, but gain 6 points on 1st, that is clearly the best move; losing points relative 2nd thru 4th is moot if I don't gain on the current leader.

Anyway, I agree that it generally boils down to the play group how to handle it. I think in my group, nobody is so serious as to get upset about how players in bad position pursue their goals.

For tournament play, I think playing the tournament is as valid as playing the current game; that's part of playing in a tournament, IMO, and you can see it in a wide variety of sporting and gaming competitions, I think.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpielByWeb Forum Index -> Hacienda All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group