Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  All

Author Topic: First player bias  (Read 38061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mnavratil

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #125 on: May 03, 2012, 12:21:26 pm »
0

Okay, but now replace actual money with some other form of utility. Say by buying that duchy you will end the game with the player you absolutley hate taking second. Not buying the duchy means that player has high probability of taking first. How can you make this detectable/illegal?

Even then, replace hatred with a rank system. Now it is possible to end the game prematurely when you are behind with little hope of catching up. Doing so is not the ideal play for this game (you guarantee yourself 3rd place); but it ensures that the high-ranking player in the game will take second to the middle-ranking player. So without any change in your position; you just changed the relative ranking of the other players. I think this could lead to a better relative ranking then would otherwise be possible (if you played the game "straight").

There is no way to gain a ranking advantage in in two-player by throwing a game in this way.

I'm not saying that this is too big of a problem to overcome, or that there is no way to game the system in 2-player; but I think the evidence suggests that multi-player and 2-player should not share the same rating system.

Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #126 on: May 03, 2012, 12:37:01 pm »
0

Okay, but now replace actual money with some other form of utility. Say by buying that duchy you will end the game with the player you absolutley hate taking second. Not buying the duchy means that player has high probability of taking first. How can you make this detectable/illegal?

Even then, replace hatred with a rank system. Now it is possible to end the game prematurely when you are behind with little hope of catching up. Doing so is not the ideal play for this game (you guarantee yourself 3rd place); but it ensures that the high-ranking player in the game will take second to the middle-ranking player. So without any change in your position; you just changed the relative ranking of the other players. I think this could lead to a better relative ranking then would otherwise be possible (if you played the game "straight").

There is no way to gain a ranking advantage in in two-player by throwing a game in this way.

I'm not saying that this is too big of a problem to overcome, or that there is no way to game the system in 2-player; but I think the evidence suggests that multi-player and 2-player should not share the same rating system.


Sigh.
Again, you can have this happen if people care about things other than their own placement more than their own placement. I've said this multiple times. And uh, what's the problem here. The problem is that you are valuing game placement, and they're valuing something else. Which isn't a problem with the game. It's a problem with the people.
Second situation, huh? So by hurting someone who's good, you're helping yourself, even though you're losing? In fact, because you're losing? Run that by me. Once again, your assertion that you're doing something 'without any change in your position' is simply untrue.
And yes, they shouldn't share the same rating system. How many times have I said otherwise? None. How many times have I said this, IN THIS VERY THREAD? Like 3 or 4 at least.

mnavratil

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #127 on: May 03, 2012, 01:32:45 pm »
0

I'm not saying you play from the start to lose. That would just be ridiculous. But given that it and can happen that you end up in an unrecoverable (or at least statistically very unlikely) position to get anything but 3rd; it is possible to affect the outcome for the other players by either buying cards that are scarce; or outright ending the game early. So in 3-player, unlike 2-player, you can be out of the running, but still have a say in who wins.

Example: Let's say the top 2 players on the leaderboard are playing against each other in a 3-player game. The #2 player finds himself in the above situation (didn't try to lose, but is has 0% chance of not placing 3rd). If the #1 player wins the game outright, the relative standing between #1 and #2 becomes greater; so it is in player #2's best interest to help and ensure a win for the other random player, right? Even though the given scenario is highly unlikely; it is not even a possibility in 2-player.

And of course people care about things other than their own placement in a single game. Like how about their placement in an overall tournament, or on the leaderboard, or some petty grievances they have? People do strange things for many reasons. How can you detect if a someone is just playing badly; or they have an ulterior motive for forcing the game in some way? A players motivation for playing badly doesn't really matter; it still costs you the game.

2-player alleviates this by only allowing you to affect your own position. 2-player: If I want player 1 to lose I have to beat him. There is no other recourse.
3-player: If I want player 1 to "lose" I can either beat him, or help someone else beat him, even if doing so means I also lose.

Fair enough to your last point. I guess I am just agreeing that 3-player introduces these (perhaps unlikely) "kingmaker" situations that are simply not present in 2-player. This leads me to believe that 3-player is inferior as a competitive format compared to 2-player. Even though 3-player still is a competitive format (this much I do believe); I think it's a shame that there aren't more strictly 2-player tournaments IRL.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #128 on: May 03, 2012, 01:45:36 pm »
0

I'm not saying you play from the start to lose. That would just be ridiculous. But given that it and can happen that you end up in an unrecoverable (or at least statistically very unlikely) position to get anything but 3rd; it is possible to affect the outcome for the other players by either buying cards that are scarce; or outright ending the game early. So in 3-player, unlike 2-player, you can be out of the running, but still have a say in who wins.

Example: Let's say the top 2 players on the leaderboard are playing against each other in a 3-player game. The #2 player finds himself in the above situation (didn't try to lose, but is has 0% chance of not placing 3rd). If the #1 player wins the game outright, the relative standing between #1 and #2 becomes greater; so it is in player #2's best interest to help and ensure a win for the other random player, right? Even though the given scenario is highly unlikely; it is not even a possibility in 2-player.
Once again, I'm not denying this. This isn't the point. The point is that this is part of the game. It's just part of the game. Something you have to live with. The worst player has an impact on things. Not an overwhelming one, but yes, there is an impact. Deal with it. Or don't play multiplayer. Just don't tell other people not to play, or that they can't, or that there isn't legitimate skill in what they're doing. That's all I'm saying here.
Quote

And of course people care about things other than their own placement in a single game. Like how about their placement in an overall tournament, or on the leaderboard, or some petty grievances they have? People do strange things for many reasons. How can you detect if a someone is just playing badly; or they have an ulterior motive for forcing the game in some way? A players motivation for playing badly doesn't really matter; it still costs you the game.
You can't, so much. Which means that it's not really a big deal if it happens. If the most collusive negative thing you can get is indeterminable from reasonable play...
But yes, it costs you the game. This is not a problem with the game. It's a problem with the people. You shouldn't be upset with the game here, you should be upset at the person who cares more about you losing than himself winning. Or maybe he's upset with you for playing to win. You're upset with him because his motivation isn't the same as yours. He can reasonably be upset with you for the same reason. Now, I'm much more sympathetic to the person trying to win here but...
Also, in a tournament, isn't the goal to win the tournament? So I don't have a problem playing with that as my motivation.
Quote

2-player alleviates this by only allowing you to affect your own position. 2-player: If I want player 1 to lose I have to beat him. There is no other recourse.
3-player: If I want player 1 to "lose" I can either beat him, or help someone else beat him, even if doing so means I also lose.

Fair enough to your last point. I guess I am just agreeing that 3-player introduces these (perhaps unlikely) "kingmaker" situations that are simply not present in 2-player. This leads me to believe that 3-player is inferior as a competitive format compared to 2-player. Even though 3-player still is a competitive format (this much I do believe); I think it's a shame that there aren't more strictly 2-player tournaments IRL.
I don't like the way you phrase it. It's not a kingmaker situation... I guess that's a semantic issue anyway, so I won't belabor that. Yes there are situations that are different, strategic intricacies that aren't present in the 2-player game. But please, don't say that makes it inferior. It makes it different. You don't like it as much, I don't like it as much, but it's different. That's what it is.

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #129 on: May 03, 2012, 02:15:09 pm »
0

Not to break up the discussion here, but it seems like 3P involves, in addition to as much or more potential for collusion as 2P, the possibility of unilateral king-making. It obviously depends on how the games are scored (does second place score higher than third?), and how turn order is determined for the next game (does seating order remain the same so it's best to be to the left of the previous winner? Is it even the same three players?), but it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a player would give the win to opponent A in order to take it from opponent B.

I can also think of circumstances in which the winner might be able to influence which of his opponents came in second, rather than just playing the game "straight." Is that legit strategic play? I tend to say no. So that's another potential problem that you face with 2+ players.

WW - rather than responding only to the weakest arguments with which you are challenged, why don't you address the following hypotheticals:

#1: P3 is so far behind on points that he has literally 0% chance to win or even take second. P2 has a narrow lead over P1, and there is one Duchy left. P3 can buy it to give P2 the win, or can leave it and give P1 the win. If the tournament is played in multiple rounds, each with a series of games, P3 will likely give the win to the opponent who has the lowest score up to that point. Or, if seating order doesn't change, he may give the win to P2, in order to go first in the next game. That is optimal play, and is problematic in a way 2P games would never be.

#2: P3 is guaranteed to win the game (he has built an insurmountable VP lead with a Goons deck), but second place is still up for grabs. P1 is ahead of P2 at the moment with a traditional Province-buying strategy, but P2's Goons deck is just starting to click, and he is likely to overtake P1 in the next few turns (before P1 could end the game). P3 can end the game on this turn, or can continue extending his VP lead while P2 overtakes P1 and then end the game. P3 is likely to give second place to the opponent with a lower score up to that point in the tournament. Again, optimal play, problematic, and only possible with 3 or more players.
Logged

mnavratil

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #130 on: May 03, 2012, 02:29:48 pm »
0

WW- I definitely see what you are saying now. I think we both agree that 3-player is different enough to warrant treating it as such.

Thinking about this more; I will totally retract my "3-player is an inferior competitive format" statement. Perhaps playing mostly 2-player puts us in a mindset that dominion is about building/playing the best deck; but in actuality it is about building the best deck after taking into account the other players. In 2-player this just happens to be the same thing; while in multi-player this can become subtly different.

I just happen to like the "build the best" deck variant because it is easier to quantify who was the best at building/playing a deck. This is the part of dominion I enjoy the most. (As a side note, this probably explains a lot of the hatred for Possession too. Now I wonder if there is correlation between how much a a player likes/hates that card and how often they play multi-player.)

Tlloyd -I think WW did answer this in his post. The answer he gave (and I am starting to agree with) is that this is just part of the 3-player game. If the game is that close and you come in second because the last place player ends prematurely; I guess you deserve second. If you went for a BM-deck against goons hoping for a quick 3-pile; don't blame another player for not 3-piling, blame yourself for picking that strategy. I think the fundamental nature of what dominion is changes for 2-player and 3+ players.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #131 on: May 03, 2012, 02:38:24 pm »
0

Not to break up the discussion here, but it seems like 3P involves, in addition to as much or more potential for collusion as 2P, the possibility of unilateral king-making. It obviously depends on how the games are scored (does second place score higher than third?), and how turn order is determined for the next game (does seating order remain the same so it's best to be to the left of the previous winner? Is it even the same three players?), but it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a player would give the win to opponent A in order to take it from opponent B.

I can also think of circumstances in which the winner might be able to influence which of his opponents came in second, rather than just playing the game "straight." Is that legit strategic play? I tend to say no. So that's another potential problem that you face with 2+ players.

WW - rather than responding only to the weakest arguments with which you are challenged, why don't you address the following hypotheticals:

#1: P3 is so far behind on points that he has literally 0% chance to win or even take second. P2 has a narrow lead over P1, and there is one Duchy left. P3 can buy it to give P2 the win, or can leave it and give P1 the win. If the tournament is played in multiple rounds, each with a series of games, P3 will likely give the win to the opponent who has the lowest score up to that point. Or, if seating order doesn't change, he may give the win to P2, in order to go first in the next game. That is optimal play, and is problematic in a way 2P games would never be.

#2: P3 is guaranteed to win the game (he has built an insurmountable VP lead with a Goons deck), but second place is still up for grabs. P1 is ahead of P2 at the moment with a traditional Province-buying strategy, but P2's Goons deck is just starting to click, and he is likely to overtake P1 in the next few turns (before P1 could end the game). P3 can end the game on this turn, or can continue extending his VP lead while P2 overtakes P1 and then end the game. P3 is likely to give second place to the opponent with a lower score up to that point in the tournament. Again, optimal play, problematic, and only possible with 3 or more players.
I'm sorry if I don't see a substantive difference between this and the other things people are bringing up.
1)Why is this problematic?
2) There's no such thing as an insurmountable lead in a goons deck! I guess, nobody else has goons or ways to get them, you have enough VP chips that it's impossible to catch up. Ok seems unlikely but sure, you can come up with scenarios where you've got a similar thing going on. Again, why is this problematic?
Both of these things are just part of the game. In a tournament setting, you should try to maximize your tournament standing at this point by affecting the other players in the way that's best for you. I don't see a problem with this. In any setting, if it truly doesn't matter, I don't see why there's a problem in the person doing whatever they want. Typically, they'll go to end it, to save time. This seems as good a thing as any. Furthermore, the other players, who it matters for, have to prepare for different eventualities. That's just part of the game, and again, I don't see the problem here, per se. Though I do understand why you might not like it.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8950
  • Respect: +9746
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #132 on: May 03, 2012, 03:05:12 pm »
+1

To throw in my opinion here... if a third player who is losing ends the game, giving the victory to player B instead of player A, then in my view, player B fully deserves that victory. The game is basically a race. A race to see who can get the most points the fastest; who can get the most points by the time the game ends. In this case, player B basically played better; he got more points in his deck than player A did.

Now, if player C plays Masquerade, and then passes a Colony to player A because he likes player A more than play B, that's different. Player A did nothing to deserve that Colony; he did not play better to get it. This would be a King-making problem. So sure, it can happen. But I'm pretty sure that situation is quite rare.

The situation of a person ending the game because they are behind, and just want to get it over with, is not king-making. The player who wins that game wins because they managed to get more points faster than the other players. Someone else didn't make them the king; their superior play made them the king.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 03:21:38 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #133 on: May 03, 2012, 03:38:17 pm »
0

To throw in my opinion here... if a third player who is losing ends the game, giving the victory to player B instead of player A, then in my view, player B fully deserves that victory. The game is basically a race. A race to see who can get the most points the fastest; who can get the most points by the time the game ends. In this case, player B basically played better; he got more points in his deck than player A did.

...

The situation of a person ending the game because they are behind, and just want to get it over with, is not king-making. The player who wins that game wins because they managed to get more points faster than the other players. Someone else didn't make them the king; their superior play made them the king.

I cannot agree with this. It's easy enough to say that whoever won deserved to win, but the point is that one of the players is choosing when the race ends, and that may be a factor in who wins. If the player who chooses to end the game does so not to win, but to determine which of the other opponents will, that's just not legitimate. It's perfectly rational meta-strategy, but it's exactly the kind of "politics" that Donald has said repeatedly he didn't want to be a part of the game.

Perhaps you'll see why your statement is wrong if I alter the hypothetical: now say that it's P2 who is far behind with the choice to end the game. If he does, P1 will win, but only by virtue of having an extra turn. If P2 allows P3 to have another turn, P3 will end the game and score more points in an equal number of turns. Now who has played better? And if P2 gives the win to P1, are you still willing to say that P1 somwhow deserves to win?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #134 on: May 03, 2012, 03:53:33 pm »
0

To throw in my opinion here... if a third player who is losing ends the game, giving the victory to player B instead of player A, then in my view, player B fully deserves that victory. The game is basically a race. A race to see who can get the most points the fastest; who can get the most points by the time the game ends. In this case, player B basically played better; he got more points in his deck than player A did.

...

The situation of a person ending the game because they are behind, and just want to get it over with, is not king-making. The player who wins that game wins because they managed to get more points faster than the other players. Someone else didn't make them the king; their superior play made them the king.

I cannot agree with this. It's easy enough to say that whoever won deserved to win, but the point is that one of the players is choosing when the race ends, and that may be a factor in who wins.
Yes... nobody's denying this...
Quote
If the player who chooses to end the game does so not to win, but to determine which of the other opponents will, that's just not legitimate. It's perfectly rational meta-strategy, but it's exactly the kind of "politics" that Donald has said repeatedly he didn't want to be a part of the game.
No, it's a different kind of politics. Because he designed the game, he knows this stuff is in there. Are you trying to say he's too stupid to realize that? Or just too stupid to be able to get rid of it? I have trouble not reading this post as insulting Donald.
Even if it WERE that kind of politics... so? I mean, the designer doesn't like it (in this hypothetical construction). So what? He's also said innumerable times that if you like X, then do X, provided it's not illegal/immoral. I don't get your point here.

Quote
 
Perhaps you'll see why your statement is wrong
Wrong?!?!
How can his statement be wrong? It seems like a pretty opinion-y thing to me. Like X played better is his statement. How can that be wrong. I guess if we had some way to objectively measure who won. But the only way I see that is... by the results! Mind you, I don't think this is really right, like I don't think that you can definitively say one way or the other, but if you could, then you're the only one who can be wrong, and he's the only one who can be right. "Aww man, torturer chains are cheap." Maybe so, but they win.
Quote
if I alter the hypothetical: now say that it's P2 who is far behind with the choice to end the game. If he does, P1 will win, but only by virtue of having an extra turn. If P2 allows P3 to have another turn, P3 will end the game and score more points in an equal number of turns. Now who has played better? And if P2 gives the win to P1, are you still willing to say that P1 somwhow deserves to win?
Yes. He deserves to because he played within the rules, and he did win. Of course he deserves to. I mean, that doesn't necessarily mean he had the best strategy, but...
2 player. I play big money. You play big money smithy. I win. Now, you might say that I'm undeserving but... I mean, what do you want to do about this?

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #135 on: May 03, 2012, 03:55:55 pm »
+1

WW -

The first substantive difference is that in my hypotheticals the game-ending player is playing rationally, not randomly.

Also, you keep moving the goal posts. The initial dispute was over whether 3P is different from 2P in a way the makes it less legitimate in trrms of competition. You denied that it was different ("you can do the same thing in 2P"). Now you've been presented with several negative aspects of 3P games that are not possible in 2P, so you change your argument to "it's different, but not bad." When we then explain why these aspects of 3P games are bad, you give a very slippery defense that they can't be bad because they are aspects of the game. If targeted attacks became part of the game, that wouldn't change the truth of Donalds reasons why they are bad for the game.

When these circumstances come up in 3P games, success comes not to whomever is best at the game, but to whomever is best at gaming the game. Surely you will admit that this makes 3P tournaments less sporting, less "pure" in some sense, than 2P. That's all we're saying. There are other aspects of 3P that male the game more fun or strategically intereting, but these are offset by aspects that make it less fair.

UPDATE: after reading your responses to my previous post, I've lost all hope for a productive conversation. Clearly you are determined to avoid the question and change the subject whenever your views are challenged.

Nobody said that 3P is not worth playing or not part of Dominion. We have merely been noting some ways in which 2P competition is less susceptible to collusion, kingmaking, and other anti-competitive behavior. I think other aspects of 3P more than make up for this, but then I see it as a game rather than a serious competition. So don't act like I'm somehow criticizing Donald by asking you to defend your own views. Both 2P and 3P are part of the game of Dominion - that doesn't mean we can't note differences in how they play.

I'll wait for GendoIkari to respond before I waste any time on your "opinion-y" rant.

And your final comment is just the same circular crap regurgitated. You say as long as you win within the rules you deserve to win. I show how that statement is harder to justify in 3P, and you say "that's 3P!" Come back when you're ready to actually make and respond to real arguments.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 04:09:19 pm by tlloyd »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8950
  • Respect: +9746
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #136 on: May 03, 2012, 04:20:07 pm »
0

To throw in my opinion here... if a third player who is losing ends the game, giving the victory to player B instead of player A, then in my view, player B fully deserves that victory. The game is basically a race. A race to see who can get the most points the fastest; who can get the most points by the time the game ends. In this case, player B basically played better; he got more points in his deck than player A did.

...

The situation of a person ending the game because they are behind, and just want to get it over with, is not king-making. The player who wins that game wins because they managed to get more points faster than the other players. Someone else didn't make them the king; their superior play made them the king.

I cannot agree with this. It's easy enough to say that whoever won deserved to win, but the point is that one of the players is choosing when the race ends, and that may be a factor in who wins. If the player who chooses to end the game does so not to win, but to determine which of the other opponents will, that's just not legitimate.
How is it not legitimate? Part of the basic strategy of the game is that you cannot guarantee when the game will end; so you need to get points as fast as possible. (At a certain point in the game, of course). When there's only 1 Province left; or a 3-pile is possible; you simply cannot know if you will get another turn. Whether it's a 2 player game or a 3 player game; if you count on getting one more turn, and don't get it, you gambled and lost.
Quote
Perhaps you'll see why your statement is wrong if I alter the hypothetical: now say that it's P2 who is far behind with the choice to end the game. If he does, P1 will win, but only by virtue of having an extra turn. If P2 allows P3 to have another turn, P3 will end the game and score more points in an equal number of turns. Now who has played better? And if P2 gives the win to P1, are you still willing to say that P1 somwhow deserves to win?
That's no different than the first player advantage in general. P1 won because he got an extra turn. In 15 turns; he got more points than P3 got in 14 turns. Did he play better? Maybe, maybe not; it's all situational. But it's the same as it would have been if it were a 2 player game and P1 ended on his turn with a win. P1 may have only won because he got an extra turn.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #137 on: May 03, 2012, 04:27:33 pm »
0

WW -

The first substantive difference is that in my hypotheticals the game-ending player is playing rationally, not randomly.
I've dealt with that too.

Quote
Also, you keep moving the goal posts.
No I don't.
Quote
The initial dispute was over whether 3P is different from 2P in a way the makes it less legitimate in trrms of competition. You denied that it was different ("you can do the same thing in 2P").
Actually the original thing was that multiplayer isn't competitively viable. Like at all. I disagreed and still do. No change.
Quote
Now you've been presented with several negative aspects of 3P games that are not possible in 2P, so you change your argument to "it's different, but not bad."
I never said that it wasn't different. I also didn't say it was not bad. I said that it's different, and that it's possible to play competitively. Whether it's 'bad' or not is a matter of taste. Again, no change here.
Quote
When we then explain why these aspects of 3P games are bad, you give a very slippery defense that they can't be bad because they are aspects of the game. If targeted attacks became part of the game, that wouldn't change the truth of Donalds reasons why they are bad for the game.
No, I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that they are part of the game. Now, that doesn't mean they can't be BAD. It means that there's no spooky conspiracy thing going on here. It's an intrinsic part of the game, as is true of most every multiplayer game, that people who 'aren't competitive' can still have a big impact on who wins, even if they don't have great chances of winning. The point that people were TRYING to make was that this like opens some Pandora's box for collusion. I pointed out that collusion is possible in 2-player too, and that it generally requires sacrificing some of your own winning chances, with a few extremely rare exceptions. But generally, the things that people are complaining about aren't collusive conspiracy plots. They're part of the game. This doesn't mean they're not bad. Loads of games are bad. Chutes and Ladders sucks. What it means is that all those times you play multiplayer, you can't pin everything on other people so much. Now the game can be bad, but that's a different discussion. You can say multiplayer dominion sucks. I would disagree with you there too. You can say multiplayer dominion is ok, but 2 player is much better. There I'll heartily agree with you. But not because it's inherently like a warped, perverted broken game. But because seat order matters more, random luck matters more, and less of the game is in your control - about 33% compared to about 50%.

Quote
When these circumstances come up in 3P games, success comes not to whomever is best at the game, but to whomever is best at gaming the game. Surely you will admit that this makes 3P tournaments less sporting, less "pure" in some sense, than 2P. That's all we're saying. There are other aspects of 3P that male the game more fun or strategically intereting, but these are offset by aspects that make it less fair.
No! 'Gaming the game' is part of the game! Anticipating this stuff is part of the game! Preparing for it is part of the game! So inherently, it IS about who is best at the game. But the game is different than 2 player dominion. So it's of course not about who's best at 2-player dominion. It's why the simulators suck at multiplayer - you really really need a good grasp of what EVERYONE is doing, there's all kinds of reactions you need to do. Sort of like, you want like 8 workshops in WS/Gardens if your opponent is going BM, but only like 3 in the mirror - you have to react. Here you have to react to more different people, as well as the board state, in totally different ways. It's not less 'fair', except inasmuch as there's more imbalance from the turn order; it's just that there's less control by the players, and more control by a player who is not in contention. But everyone is playing by the same rules, so of course it's fair. In fact I don't personally think that multiplayer is more fun than 2 player - quite the opposite - but I wouldn't say people who disagree with me are 'wrong' - they just like different things.
As for less sporting or "pure" - I really don't know what you mean. What do you mean? Because the only thing I can tell, there's more stuff out of my hands in a 3 player game. Which basically means that you need more games in order to figure out with the same amount of certainty who the best player is. But if that's less sporting... you think Baseball is less sporting than Basketball, which is less sporting than football? That's just, well I don't know what sporting means, but if that's true, then who gives a care about what is sporting. Explain to me why this is important? I like baseball better anyway. I fully respect your decision to prefer a different sport. We have different tastes, for different games. And they're different, that's all.

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #138 on: May 03, 2012, 05:15:53 pm »
0

Unfortunate that we're having this debate across two threads now, but what can you do. When I say someone is gaming the game, I'm not talking about 3P strategic interaction. I'm talking about multi-game meta-strategy, which is only relevant in 3P games. Choosing to lose a game in order to give yourself a better chance of winning the series is gaming the game, and can happen in 3P.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #139 on: May 03, 2012, 05:28:54 pm »
0

Unfortunate that we're having this debate across two threads now, but what can you do. When I say someone is gaming the game, I'm not talking about 3P strategic interaction. I'm talking about multi-game meta-strategy, which is only relevant in 3P games. Choosing to lose a game in order to give yourself a better chance of winning the series is gaming the game, and can happen in 3P.
Just part of the game that has to do with the way the tournament's structured. You shouldn't ever have a tournament structured where losing>winning. However how you lose can be important, yes. And isn't so much in two-player, if you have that set up right. Ok. What's your point, though?

MJ23

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: +4
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #140 on: May 03, 2012, 06:27:23 pm »
+4

Unfortunate that we're having this debate across two threads now, but what can you do. When I say someone is gaming the game, I'm not talking about 3P strategic interaction. I'm talking about multi-game meta-strategy, which is only relevant in 3P games. Choosing to lose a game in order to give yourself a better chance of winning the series is gaming the game, and can happen in 3P.
Just part of the game that has to do with the way the tournament's structured. You shouldn't ever have a tournament structured where losing>winning. However how you lose can be important, yes. And isn't so much in two-player, if you have that set up right. Ok. What's your point, though?

Hi, long time lurker on the forums but decided to make an account just to respond to this thread.  Btw, WW, I've watched all the videos on your Youtube channel, huge fan.

But in regards to your question, I think tlloyd's point is clear, from three posts above: "We have merely been noting some ways in which 2P competition is less susceptible to collusion, kingmaking, and other anti-competitive behavior." 

It appears you disagree with this point, though, I'm not sure how anyone could as the scenarios painted by tlloyd are explicit.  There are no parallels in 2P. 

With that as the point, I think the disagreement is just where to draw the definitive line of "competitive game".  It appears that to WW, games with levels of collusion, kingmaking, and other anti-competitive behavior similar to 3P+ dominion can still be played competitively.  But tlloyd and others believe that in view of these third-party variables or outside factors, the game should not be played competitively.  Everyone and anyone can argue semantics all day (WW) but I believe that this is what remains after all the hashing.
Logged

Jfrisch

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
  • Respect: +164
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #141 on: May 03, 2012, 09:25:42 pm »
0


As somebody who thinks that this community unfairly demonizes multiplayer I still maintain it is worse as a tournament game. To be clear, Donald X specifically designed Dominion in order to minimize/mitigate Kingmaking/attacks influencing other players unequal amounts and did about as good as in possible in a multi-player game. Nevertheless, In multi-player games, a given player's move often helps/hurts other players different amounts. There are, in my mind several ways which this makes it less suited for tournament play.

In a tournament situation, unlike in two player, there is tournament benefit to be gained by slightly harming your position in order to help other people's position. You acknowledge as much in the previous post. I view this as a negative tournament feature, in a Dominion tournament I want the results to reflect, as accurately as possible taking into account the inherent randomness of the game, who is the best Dominion player (or n-player Dominion player). Granted, draws can also have a (very mildly) warping influence on how you would play, but I feel that how you should play a multi-player dominion game is far more tournament-status dependent than it is for 2 player.

An opponent playing sub-optimally can harm you more than an opponent. People still play Dominion sub-optimally quite often, this is why it's a fun game. (Yes, 40/45+ are still very much included in here, I'm 43 and make mistakes constantly (and blunders with some regularity), and have beaten players in the top 5 because they've chosen the wrong strategy (not just niche 5-10% higher chance of winning things). However it's extraordinarily frustrating, and not really something you are capable of planning around, when your opponent's suboptimal move hurts you much more than your opponent (though, of course, you aren't necessarily a better judge of their optimal move, but sometimes you are right and they are wrong). I want to play Dominion as close to optimally as possible. I want to play the same way whether my opponent is a level 10 or a level 50, and multi-player is not (nearly as) conducive to that.

Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4371
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #142 on: May 03, 2012, 09:52:07 pm »
0

MJ23, basically yes. I don't actually think collusion is allowable in competitive environments, but the rules you have to have to limit it here, you have to have in two player as well. People will probably think to do it more in multiplayer... yadda yadda I've made this point already. But yeah, the other stuff is part of the game, etc. etc. And of course, I think that it can be played competitively. But more importantly, I don't think anyone here is in a position to tell someone it can't be done, in the hypothetical case that people want to do it. And I don't appreciate people telling other people 'well, you think you're being competitive, but you're not. ' Especially when the people saying that DON'T PLAY MULTIPLAYER. And this isn't a hypothetical here - the only IRL dominion tournaments I've ever heard about, including the world championships, are multiplayer events.
Now, what JFrisch is saying is right on. Except, once again this little issue in his second paragraph. He talks about, in his first paragraph, that this stuff is part of the game. But then he says in the second paragraph that people who use it aren't as good at the game, because they're better at something that he acknowledges is part of the game. Now the issue is, I think, that he doesn't think it SHOULD be part of the game. And I mostly agree with that, actually. It's one of the major reasons I like two player better than multiplayer. He also claims that he thinks that tournament status is a bigger factor in multiplayer than two player. Based on.... really nothing but random instinct/guess. Now, I don't have a lot of experience here, either, but I have a bit more than anyone else I've seen commenting here, and so I disagree with them on points like this, and I could be wrong, but the point is, if people are comfortable with this, then I don't see why we don't let them. Anyway, he's probably right, the question is how much more of a factor it is, and how bad of a thing that is. I think probably it's not negligible, but not a large effect, if you have your tournament set up well.
Anyway, we're basically going in circles here, so I don't anticipate saying more on the subject, because I don't anticipate someone bringing up a point that's really distinct, new ground.

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1853
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #143 on: May 04, 2012, 03:01:02 am »
+1

I mean, real life Dominion tournaments have other problems, like the finals being determined by a single match, among other things...

I'm not going to complain about winning the regional tournament a couple of weeks ago, but it didn't seem quite right that a single mistake could completely ruin your chances of winning against a good opponent. If you didn't identify the strongest interactions in the championship kingdom at the outset, you've pretty much lost that game.

Anyway I think that playing more matches and using a rotation format instead of a straight elimination format mitigates the problem of active collusion to a considerable extent. There's still the problem of passive kingmaking, but that's an innate part of 3p and it's something that you learn to take into account once you have more multiplayer experience, especially in casual settings.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 03:03:56 am by dondon151 »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5861
  • Respect: +23594
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #144 on: May 04, 2012, 05:34:19 am »
+7

in a Dominion tournament I want the results to reflect, as accurately as possible taking into account the inherent randomness of the game, who is the best Dominion player (or n-player Dominion player).
At it happens, this is not what Jay wants. Jay wants people to enjoy the tournament as much as possible. And you can only maximize one variable.

For sure two-player games are more skill-based. No argument there.

Are three-player games more fun? Well this will vary by player, but I think they are more fun for the players who aren't the best players. The top players would prefer the more skill-based format, so they had a better chance of winning. They want to play best 4 of 7 and so forth; leave nothing to chance. But most people aren't the top players.
Logged

Geronimoo

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
  • Respect: +854
    • View Profile
    • Geronimoo's Dominion Simulator
Re: First player bias
« Reply #145 on: May 04, 2012, 05:44:32 am »
0

Are there any intentions to organize a separate World Championship for 2-player Dominion? That would be awesome...
Logged

Jfrisch

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
  • Respect: +164
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #146 on: May 04, 2012, 06:56:16 am »
0

Sure, I guess I was unjustly equating "tournament" with "event designed to determine who played best during the event". I meant it more in analogy to "tournament chess" than I did as a judgement on any particular Dominion tournament.

In general, I draw a dichotomy between games I play competitively (that is, games I'm happy to spend a large amount of time on trying to get better) and games I play casually. I prefer games I play competitively to be more skill intensive/less political than I need games I play casually to be.  Two player meets those preferences better than does three player.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5861
  • Respect: +23594
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #147 on: May 04, 2012, 07:22:23 am »
+4

Are there any intentions to organize a separate World Championship for 2-player Dominion? That would be awesome...
There are no such plans; Jay prefers 3 players, itself a compromise from 4 players.

However I hope and expect (though cannot guarantee) to have tournaments with 2-player games for the online version.
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #148 on: May 04, 2012, 11:42:27 am »
0

Are there any intentions to organize a separate World Championship for 2-player Dominion? That would be awesome...
There are no such plans; Jay prefers 3 players, itself a compromise from 4 players.

However I hope and expect (though cannot guarantee) to have tournaments with 2-player games for the online version.

What does Donald prefer?  Does the "compromise" above mean you prefer 4 players?

I just want to know so I can get all elitist and tell my friends that the best way to play is how the creator intended. :P
Logged

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #149 on: May 04, 2012, 12:14:41 pm »
+1

I've played the swedish nationals, the WM and lately a swedish league. I've never had any problems with any kingmaking or collusion. People play to win, and if they don't they probably won't play competitive.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  All
 

Page created in 0.12 seconds with 20 queries.