Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All

Author Topic: How's about some Multiplayer  (Read 19533 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

ehunt

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Shuffle iT Username: ehunt
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2012, 11:58:20 am »
0

A quick rule of thumb in multiplayer, which is mostly useful in third and fourth seat:

If you'd be roughly indifferent between strategies A and B, and three people are going for strategy A, then go for strategy B.

Corollary in four player: if two people are going for strategy A and one person is going for strategy B, go for strategy B, or else you will have caused that person to follow the rule of thumb. Example: in two player I would certainly open sea hag here; in four player I would be giving Djokovic the win if I did so:

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120518-120044-fce03ffd.html

There are many exceptions (most importantly: rush strategies like ironworks/gardens get BETTER, not worse, when more players join in), and I don't have a compelling explanation for why the rule of thumb works, but I find it to be quite good. Sometimes it's even worth picking a strategy that's clearly non-dominant in two player, just for the sake of being different. For a silly example - if all your opponents buy bishops, you're suddenly at near-chapel levels of trashing. Unsupported treasure map in such a game can start to feel somewhat... supported.

Also, Geronimoo, while I appreciate the shoutout, I didn't ever play in the multiplayer isodom tournament! (I wish I had known about it - I love multiplayer.) I did use the strategy you mentioned once in a pickup game against WanderingWinder, djokovic, and michaeljb, but there was duchess and silk road on the board, which made it significantly better than just literally buying green on the first turn.
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2012, 01:38:34 pm »
0

Anyone want a four player simulation contest?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2012, 11:30:04 am »
0

Anyone want a four player simulation contest?
This is really really difficult to do, because you REALLY need to react to what your opponents are doing. A LOT.

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2012, 01:53:02 pm »
+1

I'm going to echo the opinions of others in this thread and state that expecting altruism in multiplayer Dominion is not nearly guaranteed to work.

I'm also getting a couple of mixed signals from the article. On one hand, greening fast and early is good. On the other hand, building a strong engine is good. So which is it? We all obviously know that it depends on the kingdom, but the article never explains why greening fast and early is good in multiplayer, or why building up a strong engine is good in multiplayer.

In 3 player particularly, though, I'm going to argue against the statement that it's better to green fast. Greening fast really limits your strategic options once you commit to it, because it's nearly impossible to transition out of a clogged deck into a less clogged one. If you notice that both of your opponents are racing to 4-5 Provinces plus change, you can transition into an engine that can pick up smaller VP denominations and squeeze out a win with only 3 of the Provinces. There's more Duchies to pick up, too. Granted, your opponents are now only racing to 6 Provinces each instead of all 8, but if you can't get your engine to go off before the Provinces split, then you weren't going to win, anyway (and, let's face it, if you let your opponent get to 6 Provinces in a 2 player game without alt VPs, you've lost most of the time as well).

The position is even worse if you're the 1 guy going for BM+X. You don't have the 43 VP win threshold to fall back on anymore. It's so easy to lose against an engine opponent whose engine goes off at the right time.



Next thing I want to say is that the first point Geronimoo stated needs to be expanded on. There are different, possibly more practical scenarios to touch on than just combinations of Moat and Witch. Trashing in particular is a good place to start on. Most players, in 2-player, pick up a single Upgrade, or a single Lookout, and getting rid of a couple of Estates is enough to give them an advantage. Or, you'll forgo Upgrades with your $5s until you get 2 Witches, and then you might be preferring Silvers afterwards. In a curse-laden slog, you definitely want those trashers. In fact, you may prefer trashers to cursers! I've played several games in which opening Silver/Lookout and then grabbing a second or a third Lookout trumped Sea Hag/Silver or Sea Hag/Lookout. The thing is that trashing cards from your deck means that you'll also see your trashers more often, and you'll end up with a huge momentum advantage over your opponents, whose decks are bogged down with useless cards.
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2012, 02:48:30 pm »
0

Quote
I'm also getting a couple of mixed signals from the article. On one hand, greening fast and early is good. On the other hand, building a strong engine is good. So which is it?

There isn't one golden rule. You've got to keep an open mind as you play the kingdom. Even promising advice such as "keep your options open throughout the game" might be wrong for a kingdom if you actually need to start rushing for key cards from turn 1.
Logged

shMerker

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Respect: +389
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2012, 10:51:34 pm »
0

The point of the question is to find out what sorts of things one watches out for to decide between these strategies. Saying that "sometimes greening early is good, and sometimes going for an engine is good" is ultimately not saying much.
Logged
"I take no responsibility whatsoever for those who get dizzy and pass out from running around this post."

Markov Chain

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
  • Respect: +77
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2012, 11:27:10 pm »
0

A quick rule of thumb in multiplayer, which is mostly useful in third and fourth seat:

If you'd be roughly indifferent between strategies A and B, and three people are going for strategy A, then go for strategy B.

This really depends on the strategy;  this thread is a 3P game I played where the single strategy had an advantage, while this thread is an example which worked the other way.  (Both were games in which I faced two mega-Goons players; Cartographer/Tunnel was able to three-pile the game on its own before the Goons got too dangerous and benefit from lots of Goons played against it, while Jester/Fairgrounds scored a lot of points but couldn't force the end.)
Logged

ShuffleLuck

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2012, 07:01:16 pm »
0

The "persuading" part is super out of place and is definitely cheating. Not the first time Geronimoo considers cheating behavior normal though, which is disappointing for sure (referring to the consulting of simulators in the beginning of games discussion a few months back).
....
Edit: I guess this kind of behavior exists in other board games so I maybe shouldn't categorically call it cheating. It absolutely has no place in Dominion in my mind, though, especially since I only approach it as a competitive game, not a casual one. In any competitive environment, it's definitely cheating.

Furthermore, that kind of behavior exists in Dominion itself in different playgroups. The line between cheating and fair play is socially constructed to some extent (there are always gray areas), so implicitly questioning Geronimoo's morals is very poor form, in my opinion. In both the examples you cite (multiplayer persuation and consulting simulators), Geronimoo has been fairly upfront and straightforward, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Different groups have different norms.

It's perfectly fine to argue that these behaviors should be prohibited in our online community (or in dominion tournaments in general, or whatever), but please don't go accusing someone of being a cheater when they are making a good faith effort and believe they are following the rules.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 07:06:06 pm by ShuffleLuck »
Logged

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2012, 07:09:02 pm »
0

You'll have to point out to me where in that paragraph I call Geronimoo a cheater, I guess. I'm not seeing it.

Regardless of whatever social dynamics may or may not exist in certain playgroups, I absolutely stand by that this is cheating in Dominion, and until you find me a (real, competitive) tournament where that's not the case, I don't see myself entertaining any other notion.

I will also point out that if I had called Geronimoo a cheater (which I did not, and am not), it wouldn't matter how upfront or straightforward he is about it. If someone cheats, he cheats regardless of those things. See Mike Long.

Edit: I see you edited it out, so my post only half makes sense. Oh well.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2012, 07:18:59 pm »
0

You'll have to point out to me where in that paragraph I call Geronimoo a cheater, I guess. I'm not seeing it.

The "persuading" part is super out of place and is definitely cheating. Not the first time Geronimoo considers cheating behavior normal though, which is disappointing for sure (referring to the consulting of simulators in the beginning of games discussion a few months back).

Indeed, it's not so much the first sentence there, but the second one.
Quote
Regardless of whatever social dynamics may or may not exist in certain playgroups, I absolutely stand by that this is cheating in Dominion, and until you find me a (real, competitive) tournament where that's not the case, I don't see myself entertaining any other notion.
While I agree that this is cheating, this is a bad metric. Find 1 "real, competitive" tournament... yeah.

Quote
I will also point out that if I had called Geronimoo a cheater (which I did not, and am not), it wouldn't matter how upfront or straightforward he is about it. If someone cheats, he cheats regardless of those things. See Mike Long.
Again, agree, but... what do you do? I guess you complain.
And now I've just read up the wikipedia on Mike Long, and I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant.

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2012, 07:25:15 pm »
0

Dunno about "relevant", WW. He's a pretty famous Magic player who's mostly famous for being a cheater, and everyone knows it and he's like "yeah well, whatever". Doesn't make him any less of a cheater.

WW, if two people could show up at one of the Regionals or Nationals or World Championship (why are these not real and competitive btw?) coming up and openly be like "yeah when we're on the same table we're definitely softplaying each other and passing Colonies to the one who's behind and stuff", and were met with a "damn these guys are playing a really strong strategy :(" rather than "lol what is wrong with you guys, you're not playing gtfo" then I'd definitely have to rethink collusion in Dominion as being cheating. I don't see it happening though; do you?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2012, 07:43:00 pm »
0

Dunno about "relevant", WW. He's a pretty famous Magic player who's mostly famous for being a cheater, and everyone knows it and he's like "yeah well, whatever". Doesn't make him any less of a cheater.
Well you say he cheats, what I read is that he's been suspected of cheating and made what some people consider to be an unethical psychological ploy. I don't see any problem with the psychological ploy (which I would say is part of the game). Certainly you saying he's a cheater doesn't make him so. But the bigger point is, I don't see anything anywhere about him being 'up front' about his alleged cheating, which makes it not relevant. I mean, I guess the point about relevance is, why would you say something that's irrelevant - it doesn't add anything to the discussion, basically by definition. And I especially dislike it if you present as if it were relevant. And I don't see how Mike Long is any more relevant here than Vesselin Topalov or Marion Jones or Shoeless Joe Jackson or The Turk or Rollie Fingers or Lance Armstrong or... hundreds of other cases that just don't make sense to bring up.

Quote
WW, if two people could show up at one of the Regionals or Nationals or World Championship (why are these not real and competitive btw?)
(because they're very very not competitive. Just check out the rules. Or Donald's posts that explain how Jay is more concerned with having things be fun than any kind of competitive aspects. They are, of course, real).
Quote
coming up and openly be like "yeah when we're on the same table we're definitely softplaying each other and passing Colonies to the one who's behind and stuff", and were met with a "damn these guys are playing a really strong strategy :(" rather than "lol what is wrong with you guys, you're not playing gtfo" then I'd definitely have to rethink collusion in Dominion as being cheating. I don't see it happening though; do you?
No, I don't. But people saying that that's just strong play is not going to make me re-think the thing at all either. There are plenty of stupid people, and lots more people who make stupid arguments. Why would you be swayed by them? I just don't see how that's relevant to the larger issue that ShuffleLuck is bringing up. Well, really, that's two issues. First is calling Geronimoo a cheater. Second is how social dynamics of playgroups play into the collusion issue. Funnily enough, I would not call a tournament a playgroup. I'd call it a competitive environment. And if you want to make sure that there's no collusion in your play-group, more power to you. I probably will try to as well. But I mean, the point is to have social fun, so it's not like I'm going to start cursing at these people either, as you suggest. This seems like a real good way to lose friends to me. But if it works for you, great.

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2012, 08:06:12 pm »
+1

You really pick the weirdest things to come down hard on, especially so when you admit you don't know anything about it. I just mentioned his name in passing as an example I figured a lot of people here would be familiar with. I haven't read his wiki page (Magic players have wiki pages? I had no idea), but I guess it's not surprising it's not mentioned there. In the Magic community, he's a well known cheater though, I promise I'm not making this up or "just saying so". He also acknowledges it, it's again not something I'm making up or "just saying". That said, I don't understand why examples of known cheaters who admit they've cheated aren't relevant to a discussion about whether being upfront and straightforward about being a cheater makes you any less of a cheater? I mean, again, I don't know what you even mean by "relevant" though.. it's just an example man. Marion Jones admitted she cheated. This doesn't make her cheating any better. Just an example.

Now for the actual content of the post. If a tournament organizer allowed open collusion in a tournament (I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "competitive" aspect of them; I consider them competitive because they're playing for something (in my mind) significant, the world championship title), it would absolutely mean something to me with regards to what's allowed and what's not allowed in tournament Dominion. Tournament rules are imo very signficant indeed for what goes and what doesn't go. I hope you appreciate that I'm talking about competitive/tournament Dominion in my posts, right? I even clarified it with a little Edit thing in my first post. I'm not too concerned with what people do as far as house rules go, from my limited reading of the Variants & Fan Cards subforum it seems all kinds of crazy things go on. Like you say, more power to them.

As for calling Geronimoo a cheater, I'm going to say again that I haven't done that. I said he considers cheating behavior normal, which might have been a poor word choice maybe? "Acceptable" or something, I dunno. If I played him in a competitive/tournament environment and him and his friend started colluding, I'd call him a cheater. This hasn't happened, and I strongly doubt it will.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2012, 08:26:34 pm »
0

You really pick the weirdest things to come down hard on, especially so when you admit you don't know anything about it.
I'm not 'coming down hard' on the Mike Long thing. I really don't know, and I'm explaining 'well gee, that example doesn't help me much, because I don't know so much about it. 'From what I can find, which I assumed would be pretty good, given that you reference him like he's a great known example, it seems like X, which doesn't seem to fit with what you're saying.' Which is basically inviting you to chime in to expand on your extremely short, supposed to be informative post. Maybe it's just my ignorance, but I am guessing that Mike Long does not mean a ton to most of the people on this board.
What I'm coming down hard on is 2 things, but we'll get to those later in the post.
Quote
I just mentioned his name in passing as an example I figured a lot of people here would be familiar with. I haven't read his wiki page (Magic players have wiki pages? I had no idea), but I guess it's not surprising it's not mentioned there. In the Magic community, he's a well known cheater though, I promise I'm not making this up or "just saying so". He also acknowledges it, it's again not something I'm making up or "just saying".
Okay. I don't really have reason to doubt this. It seems like an admission of cheating would be something worthwhile to put on the wiki page, but, those things probably don't get so much quality control.
Quote
That said, I don't understand why examples of known cheaters who admit they've cheated aren't relevant to a discussion about whether being upfront and straightforward about being a cheater makes you any less of a cheater?
Because none of those people were upfront about cheating. There's a big difference between admitting to something when faced with conclusive evidence (which some people still fail to do), and being upfront about it going in.
Quote
I mean, again, I don't know what you even mean by "relevant" though.. it's just an example man. Marion Jones admitted she cheated. This doesn't make her cheating any better. Just an example.
From OED:
Quote
Bearing on or connected with the matter in hand; closely relating to the subject or point at issue; pertinent to a specified thing.
I'm saying that it's not pertinent, for the reasons I outline above. Again, not a huge deal. Is it ok for me to disagree with you without you thinking that I'm 'coming down hard'?
Quote
Now for the actual content of the post. If a tournament organizer allowed open collusion in a tournament (I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "competitive" aspect of them; I consider them competitive because they're playing for something (in my mind) significant, the world championship title),
Gonna break in here to say that that title means nothing to me, given that the tournaments they're won in are, well, more or less a farce. From reports I've read (and yes, this is just hearsay), the judging is not super-professional (not that they're dishonest or not trying), it's all big multiplayer, with things like VP tiebreakers being important, and very very few games determining everything. But whatever, you can think they're competitive, that's fine.
Quote
it would absolutely mean something to me with regards to what's allowed and what's not allowed in tournament Dominion. Tournament rules are imo very signficant indeed for what goes and what doesn't go.
Yeah, but tournament rules are very different from social conventions and even moreso from what people say.
Quote
I hope you appreciate that I'm talking about competitive/tournament Dominion in my posts, right? I even clarified it with a little Edit thing in my first post. I'm not too concerned with what people do as far as house rules go, from my limited reading of the Variants & Fan Cards subforum it seems all kinds of crazy things go on. Like you say, more power to them.
But the point is, ShuffleLuck ISN'T talking about competitive/tournament Dominion. He's talking about social dynamics of a playgroup. And you just say 'lah-dee-dah, this doesn't matter, you're totally wrong for dominion'. Well, the problem here is, if he cares about social dominion, you don't need to come down on him for not conforming to competitive dominion standards. I mean, you say you don't care about what people do at home, but my question to you is, why do you say this then? This is one of my two big problems, for which I'm coming down.

Quote
As for calling Geronimoo a cheater, I'm going to say again that I haven't done that. I said he considers cheating behavior normal, which might have been a poor word choice maybe? "Acceptable" or something, I dunno. If I played him in a competitive/tournament environment and him and his friend started colluding, I'd call him a cheater. This hasn't happened, and I strongly doubt it will.
Yeah, who's splitting hairs now? I mean, why is calling someone a cheater a bad thing? Because it is an attack on their character. If you want to be really strict about it, thinking that cheating is acceptable is WORSE than saying someone did cheat, because just cheating by itself isn't really that bad, if you didn't do it purposefully. Not thinking that there's a problem with it more serious. So I guess, technically, you didn't say he cheated. You said something worse. Which is the biggest problem I have here, especially since you just slide into this area where you move the conversation to just PRESUME that the behaviour in question is cheating. Now, I agree with you that it is indeed cheating, but I would not go around impugning Geronimoo's character about it, as clearly the issue he has is WHETHER it's cheating, and I'm not going to get on someone so hard personally fro not seeing totally eye-to-eye on a relatively irrelevant bit of sub-ethics in a game. And this is the thing that really gets my goat.

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2012, 08:53:45 pm »
0

I'm going to summarize the discussion so far and you can tell me where I've gone wrong. It'll be paraphrased, but hopefully no more so than "lah-dee-dah, this doesn't matter, you're totally wrong for dominion".

1. I say collusion is cheating in any competitive/tournament dominion.

2. ShuffleLuck says that in some circles it's more of a gray area.

3. I say I stand by my opinion that collusion is cheating.

4. You come down on me for coming down on ShuffleLuck, saying he's wrong about Dominion, when what I've done is express my opinion (?)

I don't know what to say at this point except that I disagree that I came down hard on ShuffleLuck and I disagree I said he was wrong (or indeed totally wrong).
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2012, 09:19:21 pm »
0

I'm going to summarize the discussion so far and you can tell me where I've gone wrong. It'll be paraphrased, but hopefully no more so than "lah-dee-dah, this doesn't matter, you're totally wrong for dominion".

1. I say collusion is cheating in any competitive/tournament dominion.

2. ShuffleLuck says that in some circles it's more of a gray area.

3. I say I stand by my opinion that collusion is cheating.

4. You come down on me for coming down on ShuffleLuck, saying he's wrong about Dominion, when what I've done is express my opinion (?)

I don't know what to say at this point except that I disagree that I came down hard on ShuffleLuck and I disagree I said he was wrong (or indeed totally wrong).
This is about half of a good summary. The other half is where you crash down on Geronimoo. Indeed, I don't think I really 'came down hard' either.
But the problem is that when you say 3 in response to 2, it makes it seem like you're saying that this includes what he's saying. Let me give you an example"
Jimmy: "I think that the offsides trap is a really innovative and exciting new way to play football."
Bob: "Cheating is bad."
---This makes it seem like Bob is saying that what Jimmy is talking about - in this case the offsides trap - is cheating. And that's what I saw going on here - you saying that it's cheating in dominion, meaning all forms, specifically including the casual playgroups, as that is what he's talking about in the post you are obviously replying to. I mean, you'd already made your 'collusion-is-cheating' point; I don't see any reason why you would make the point you do in reply 33 except to do this.
But still, the bigger thing is the attacks on Geronimoo. And then combine the two, and that gets me posting five times.

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2012, 10:38:12 pm »
+1

I don't really see how the situation Geronimo outlined about the guy not giving out the curse so that later he might get a favor... Would ever occur. If this person is so out of the game that you don't risk anything by not giving him the curse, why does it even matter? Would the other person say "gee thanks that was so nice ! Now I am still miserably out of this game but I have one fewer curse! I will repay this kindness!" If he's so out of the game that you can safely not give him
A curse, he has no reason to thank you for not giving him a curse.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Geronimoo

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1059
  • Respect: +868
    • View Profile
    • Geronimoo's Dominion Simulator
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2012, 03:44:48 am »
0

As for calling Geronimoo a cheater, I'm going to say again that I haven't done that. I said he considers cheating behavior normal, which might have been a poor word choice maybe? "Acceptable" or something, I dunno. If I played him in a competitive/tournament environment and him and his friend started colluding, I'd call him a cheater. This hasn't happened, and I strongly doubt it will.
I don't find cheating normal. I absolutely despise cheating and cheaters. BUT I am always looking to find any edge I can in a competitive game as long as I can stay within the rules. The consulting of simulators during a game didn't seem like a problem to me at all until I saw how the community reacted and I immediately stopped doing it.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2012, 03:58:07 am »
0

As for calling Geronimoo a cheater, I'm going to say again that I haven't done that. I said he considers cheating behavior normal, which might have been a poor word choice maybe? "Acceptable" or something, I dunno. If I played him in a competitive/tournament environment and him and his friend started colluding, I'd call him a cheater. This hasn't happened, and I strongly doubt it will.
I don't find cheating normal. I absolutely despise cheating and cheaters. BUT I am always looking to find any edge I can in a competitive game as long as I can stay within the rules. The consulting of simulators during a game didn't seem like a problem to me at all until I saw how the community reacted and I immediately stopped doing it.

Question: Is consulting F.DS (not by posting, but by reading previously made posts) equally cheating to consulting simulators? I would say moreso, personally.
Logged

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2012, 04:51:36 am »
0

Oh! This discussion again. I have another question on the topic: When is isotropic going down?
Logged

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #45 on: June 13, 2012, 05:43:09 am »
+1

WW, I understand you're bothered about what I said about Geronimoo. Like you say, you've posted about it a lot by now. You're being silly when you attack me for other stuff that's only in your head though, and it detracts from what is (apparently) your main point.

Geronimoo, I'm sorry I said you find cheating behavior normal based on these two topics.
Logged

bozzball

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +68
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2012, 06:14:05 am »
0

Just to throw in my tuppence, I am very surprised that this is characterized as cheating in Dominion. I consider it to be a standard part of how 3-or-more-player games are generally played, regardless of which game you are playing (Settlers, Carcasonne, Ticket etc.) and sort of what makes them more interesting and better than 2-player versions of the same game.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #47 on: June 13, 2012, 07:24:10 am »
0

... and sort of what makes them more interesting and better than 2-player versions of the same game.

for suitable definitions of "better"...
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #48 on: June 13, 2012, 08:55:07 am »
+1

WW, I understand you're bothered about what I said about Geronimoo. Like you say, you've posted about it a lot by now. You're being silly when you attack me for other stuff that's only in your head though,
This other stuff isn't only 'in my head'. Certainly you're not in any more of an objective position as I am. I think the other stuff is important, too. Not as outrageous, which is why I didn't like that you were seemingly just ignoring the Geronimoo bit, but also problematic. The larger part is, I'm not attacking you. I'm certainly not trying to. What I'm doing is (vehemently) disagreeing with (I guess you could call this 'going after' or 'attacking') what you're saying. Now you're probably going to say that it's a semantic difference, but it's a very important distinction. Attacking people is injurious to them. Going after the arguments is fine - if you disagree with the thing, you disagree it, and you should be able to say that.
And the reason I keep saying it is that I feel like you haven't responded, until this post just here that I'm quoting.
Quote
and it detracts from what is (apparently) your main point.
I can have multiple points, and I ought to be able to make them without them detracting from each other, unless I am somehow making some kind of contradictory arguments, or something along those lines. I have also posted lots of stuff about dominion cards, and I don't think that detracts either. It's just not on the same topic, and I feel I ought to be able to talk about different topics without having them detract from each other.

Look, I don't have a problem with you. You're a strong player, you have your opinions, you voice them, and that's all fine and good with me. The problems I'm having are when you seem to me to be attacking other people, or trying to impose some kind of artificial restrictions on people.
I'm sorry if you feel I've been attacking you. This was certainly not my intention.

bozzball

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +68
    • View Profile
Re: How's about some Multiplayer
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2012, 11:29:51 am »
0

... and sort of what makes them more interesting and better than 2-player versions of the same game.

for suitable definitions of "better"...

Yep. Meant to wrap that whole message in a "in my opinion"
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.111 seconds with 20 queries.