Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[O]

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201202/28/game-20120228-210652-56a7af96.html

I'm sure luck was mostly on my side for the majority of the game (Steward-E-E-C-C 3rd turn is nice) but these types on endings just anger me so much. Dan the Chemist has 8$, 2 buys on his 12th turn and 18 VP. There are two provinces left and it's a four player game, so the odds that he sees another turn are pretty minimal.

But instead of buying the last province and either
A) Tying for a win in 4P if I grab the last
B) Losing if I miss and G Rated buys the last
or
C) Winning outright if Cakewalk buys the last,

he inexplicably takes his chances on Duchy-Great Hall. I wouldn't be annoyed if he had merely ruined his own chances, but because he passed the province I lost my chance (which would have happened) of tying for the win, instead having to get the penultimate province and lose to G Rated.

I wouldn't say anything about this if this was an in-person game or a non-counter game, but it really irks me when people are too lazy to type !status, and because of this make moves that affect the other players. I guess this isn't really any different from playing a suboptimal strategy though.

[Ozle]

Hmm, im not totally against the move, it depends on how likely he thought the 3 players had the chance of buying two provinces between them, if they are consistant buying provinces then its a bad move, if they are buying here and there, go for the win! He only needs 2 out of three of you to fail for that chance to win outright.

Cant see the log unfortunately, so this is all conjecture.

[greatexpectations]

a few things -

- here is the council room link.
- it is a four player game, it happens. more players means more chances for someone to get a great draw, more kingmaking and more early turn advantage.
- his move seemed like clear self defense.  it was his best chance of nabbing 1st place, and it also gave him a pretty good chance of grabbing second. 
- Dan the Chemist could just as easily be sitting on his side of the screen wondering why you would go and buy the penultimate province when it didn't guarantee you a win and it cut his chances of a win.
- the lack of merchant ships in this game from 4 players makes me a little sad. 
- you still picked up wins against Dan and Cakewalk, it is not as if his move shot you down to 4th place.

[Ozle]

Yeah, looking at the log im more convinced Dan the Chemist did the right thing.

if we follow your logic,
Dan the Chemist knows you wont buy the 2nd to last province, becausethen your unlikely to win.
G - Rated cannot then buy it because he know if Cakewalk doesnt he has also lost
Cakewalk cannot buy it because he cannot win if he does (Although not a lot he can do to win so may buy it)

In this situation, it comes back to Dan to either buy the second to last Province, or the last, either way he sets himself up for the win.

The only mistake he has made in his analysis is that you would buy it when you know its unlikely to make you win. (By your own analysis its unlikely youll get another turn)

So he is probably sitting there cursing you for you buying it.



EDIT: All this is with the benefit of hindsight and logs to be fair. During the game id probably have completely lost track of who has what points!

[RisingJaguar]

On that note, how do people expect other players to play in multi-player? Do people expect others to constantly be playing to win? (ie. similar to playing PPR even in a 3p/4p setting?).  I'm probably on the side of they should try to better than chances to place higher with emphasis on 1st. 

The other big question that doesn't come up here is when the person in 4th (or 3rd I suppose) place clearly has the ability to end the game without being able to win (either far behind or close).  What should occur? On one hand, people can get upset when they miss out on their turn that "should have" been theirs.  The other, a person gets 'an extra' turn because someone makes a foolish attempt to win.  I'm pretty uncaring about these things but it seems interesting.

Edit: I mention this because I believe this is why people are frustrated with multi-player games.  Confusion on the expected or 'should've been' outcome.

[Ozle]

I would expect them to play to win, 2nd place means nothing in normal games (slightly different in tournament).
However, if they can no longer win I expect them to end the game as quickly as possible

[kn1tt3r]

If you hate 4-player games, why do you play them?

[greatexpectations]

I would expect them to play to win, 2nd place means nothing in normal games (slightly different in tournament).
However, if they can no longer win I expect them to end the game as quickly as possible

on isotropic though second place does get something.  as i understand it, getting second place in a 4p game is equivalent to a loss to the winner and a win over 3rd and 4th place.

[DsnowMan]

This is right, 2nd and 3rd are worth something on ISO. One rational thing a player can go for is to maximize the EV of their game points. It would be tough to calculate that on the fly in most situations, but I will gun for a 2nd place finish and end the game if I am pretty sure I can't win.

[Dauntless]

Generally there are three goals one can play for in a game:

1. To win. 2nd place is the same as 4th place.
2. Rank. The difference between 2nd and 1st is comparable to 4th and 3rd.
3. Total score. You want as many points as possible and don't care about the other players.

#3 might be valid in bowling or poker but usually isn't appropriate for board games. I have heard of players refusing to buy the last province because they want to see how many points their goons can score.

On Isotropic I play #2 because that's how rank is calculated so I assume that's the implicit contract. For most Euro style games I weigh #1 and #2 fairly equally. If I'm in third I'll take a reasonable longshot to get 1st but I won't take a one in a million risk.

I agree that it's frustrating when you are playing for different goals than your opponent and I used to wish games rules would provide guidance (but I've since lightened up).

[O]

If you hate 4-player games, why do you play them?

I'm sorry, I don't think Why-I-Dislike-The-Randomness-Of-Four-Player-Games-Due-To-Alternating-Strategies-But-Still-Play-Them-Because-I-Like-The-Variation-From-2P fit and I assumed people are able to put aside their pedantic nature and understand the usage of hyperbole in the English Language.

That being said, I'm interested in a probablistic analysis of his choice. I'm pretty positive that my choice of taking the province was correct (I would be helplessly behind with one buy every turn to catch up, requiring Dan to miss a DUCHY to have a chance at 1st) and I still win if G Rated misses and Cakewalk buys the last), but there is actually some interesting discussion on the merits of valuing a "tie" for 1st signficantly below first outright.

That being said, saying buying duchy-estate increases the chance of winning in any manner is ridiculous. For him to win after duchy-estate, he needs 2 of the next 3 players to not buy a province. To win after province, he only needs me to buy a province or G Rated to miss the province.

[Axxle]

So, basically "I hate 4 player because sometimes players make mistakes that benefit my opponents more than me."  Seems unavoidable in most multiplayer games.

[kn1tt3r]

Well, as the discussion here shows, the correct decision for your opponent isn't trivial at all, and this sort of thing (disadvantages due to possibly bad decisions of other players) is simply part of multiplayer dominion. You can just try to mitigate it by building an early lead (in this kingdom maybe by ignoring Chapel, going for Merchant Ships, or sth like that), but if you can't live with it at all, simply don't play 4-player games.

[blueblimp]

Generally there are three goals one can play for in a game:

1. To win. 2nd place is the same as 4th place.
2. Rank. The difference between 2nd and 1st is comparable to 4th and 3rd.
3. Total score. You want as many points as possible and don't care about the other players.

#3 might be valid in bowling or poker but usually isn't appropriate for board games. I have heard of players refusing to buy the last province because they want to see how many points their goons can score.

On Isotropic I play #2 because that's how rank is calculated so I assume that's the implicit contract. For most Euro style games I weigh #1 and #2 fairly equally. If I'm in third I'll take a reasonable longshot to get 1st but I won't take a one in a million risk.

I agree that it's frustrating when you are playing for different goals than your opponent and I used to wish games rules would provide guidance (but I've since lightened up).

I agree completely with this analysis. The one situation when I break from goals #2 & #1 is if I'm hopelessly far in last place. If I followed goals #2 & #1 strictly, I'd avoid ending the game because of the negligible chance of moving up in rank. Instead, I'll deviate to goal #3 and try to up my points, which might mean taking the last province even though I'll finish in last place.