Print

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

[Tables]

This came up in the postgame of a PBF game on BGG, about ties. I won't quote everything that was said there but feel free to look.

In short: Americans seem to hate ties in games and sports, when the majority of other people seem okay with them, if a winner is not necessary (e.g. in a knockout contest). Why is this? What makes the idea of two people/teams being declared equal in a contest so unthinkable?

[Archetype]

Maybe this belongs in the RSP sub forum, but possibly because of the Capitalist government? With it, you always feel like you have to be on top and the 'winner'? That would be my guess. I don't mind ties, but I'd usually prefer for there to be a winner.

[yudantaiteki]

I see one American who doesn't like draws in that thread.

[Tables]

I see one American who doesn't like draws in that thread.

Yes, one, but the point is, it's the same throughout a lot of sports. American Football, Baseball, Basketball all have rules to break ties in just about any level of play, and these are traditionally American sports. Look elsewhere, and tiebreaking is restricted to where it's needed.

[eHalcyon]

It is very rare, improbable even, that multiple competitors would be perfectly and evenly matched.  A desire to declare an actual winner thus makes sense, because one of two players or teams is, in all likelihood, the better player/team.  Of course, luck and various other factors have it that the better competitor could still lose.

Or maybe draws just aren't exciting?  Or, in the minds of some people, drawing is hardly better than losing?

[yudantaiteki]

I think that an overtime period to determine a winner is much more exciting than a tie.  But then again, I'm just an American.  We don't like ties.

[liopoil]

rivalries. people get really into it, trash talking the other team and stuff. If it were a tie, that would be really anti-climatic.

[jonts26]

rivalries. people get really into it, trash talking the other team and stuff. If it were a tie, that would be really anti-climatic.

rivalries exist outside of america.

[mail-mi]

rivalries. people get really into it, trash talking the other team and stuff. If it were a tie, that would be really anti-climatic.

rivalries exist outside of america.

WHAT? No....

[Twistedarcher]

This has come up with a lot of my friends, mainly about sports.

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, is that there are ties, and there aren't playoffs.

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I like that soccer doesn't have playoffs, as well. I see no reason why one small subset of the season should matter more than all the other parts of the season. Every game matters without a playoff system! Instead of 4 exciting games/series, you have an entire season, where each and every game could be the decisive result for a championship. Much more excitement!

[sudgy]

rivalries. people get really into it, trash talking the other team and stuff. If it were a tie, that would be really anti-climatic.

I think this might be it, I remember hearing that baseball didn't have extra innings originally but then one time there was a game that was very hyped, and it ended in a draw.  The people watching decided they wouldn't leave until one of them won.

[ashersky]

Is this the shared victories thread?

[Synthesizer]

Americans don't know what sports rivalry is. You have to have seen a line of mounted riot police charge straight at you to really appreciate sports rivalry. (to this day, I do not know how I managed to jump a fence that high as an evasive maneuver, while peeing myself) (and I wasn't even "in" the riot - I was just not paying attention and wandered straight into it...)

Actually, I really do think Americans have it right, by the way. You really should be able to attend any sports match without fear of getting your skull cracked.

[Awaclus]

Not an American, but I hate ties, too. The goal of the game is to win it, and if there's a tie, no player/no team wins. And that sucks for both players/teams, while winning and losing sucks only for the losing player/team. Of course, if ties are very uncommon in a game (such as Innovation), then it's cool if a tie happens just because it's so uncommon, but generally, I find it easier to say "gg" when at least one player or team has actually won the game.

It's like winning the boss fight in an RPG, but then accidentally breaking the magical item the boss was carrying. You didn't die, so you didn't quite lose the game, but you still failed at achieving your goal. And the GM who just let this happen is totally a scumbag.

[DG]

I don't see why it sucks for both teams to tie. It can be great for both teams to tie. You're assuming the answer to the question.

[Davio]

I can really only talk about football/soccer here.

In a regular season (team plays every other team twice so 34 matches in total in our top tier), wins are awarded 3 points and ties are awarded 1 points. The problem with this is of course that teams start to becoming afraid of losing after the score has been tied for a while. The 2 point difference hardly seems enough to make teams try for the win very badly even though the amount they can gain is twice as much as what they can lose. I guess human psychology just works this way.

But we can't really compare football to American sports, because American sports tend to have lots of "goals" and therefore a tie is less likely to happen. Basketball games are won with more than 100 points sometimes. There is also a cultural difference. In Europe, we don't mind that sports aren't that overly exciting to watch (although we do try), like Snooker, where enjoyment comes from appreciation of the great skill that players show, not just the amount of balls they sink into the holes.

So you could say that in Europe we see a tie as an equal appreciation of both players'/teams' skill. American culture to me seems more competitive, not only in sports, but in other aspects. I keep referring to the American Dream meaning you can claw your way to the top if you really want to and also that you "should" want to (otherwise you're a bad citizen). We're not that infatuated with success in the Netherlands I think, but globalization and Americanisation means we're swaying that way nonetheless.

If we actually want to do something about ties in football, there are no real good ways to deal with it. A regular game lasts 90 minutes. In knockout systems, two halfs of 15 minutes are added with a penalty shootout as a last resort. Neither is very appealing. Adding that much extra time just makes the players more tired and the game while tense less skilled in the end. And the penalty shootout is pretty much a lottery. I don't think there really is a way that is clearly better.

In the old days, when a game was tied in a knockout system, they would just replay the entire game in a play-off or, even worse, decide it on a coin toss. That just isn't realistic nowadays and because of commercial interests there can't be an uncertain number of games anymore.

[Awaclus]

I don't see why it sucks for both teams to tie. It can be great for both teams to tie. You're assuming the answer to the question.

Only if their goal isn't winning. A game of Dominion can be great for you when you gain all the Curses if your goal wasn't winning the game, but gaining the most Curses instead.

[Watno]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

[Davio]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

It's true, but that doesn't make it less interesting in my view. It's like a chess match sometimes where there is a lot of build-up and a couple of game-changing moves. I play football on a recreational basis myself (part of the second team of the local club, we play a competition of 22 matches and a cup system) which also effects the way I look at it.

I know how hard it can be to even get the ball to stay on your foot so when Xavi, Iniesta or Messi get a hard pass and immediately control the ball, I can see a lot of beauty in that. Goals aren't the only things that excite me in a match. I play in a position behind the strikers myself, so when I see someone give a brilliant through pass to put the striker one on one with the goalkeeper I applaud that more than the striker actually making the goal.

When we watch football matches on tv we get a nice overview of where the available free players are, but down on the pitch it's really hard to keep a cool head and see a way out of threatening situations. You really should watch Messi and Xavi when they don't have the ball, they're always looking around seeing where their team mates and opponents are and they're always moving, trying to keep at least 1 meter between them and the defenders. This makes them really hard to defend.

I guess what it comes down to is that you can appreciate other parts of a game when you're really into it and if you don't know a game that well you just focus on "goals". When I watch baseball, all I care about is homeruns, not all of the statistics that are available.

[Synthesizer]

I went to a Phillies game. A friend of a friend, upon hearing I was from Europe, asked if I liked soccer. I responded, "I'm from Europe, duh." He said, "I can't bear watching that, watching a whole game hoping to see only a few worthwile moments."

"Yet here we are, at a baseball game."


I can totally appreciate the fact that some sports are an acquired taste. Supposedly, when you really know all that's going on (rather than a general understanding of the rules), baseball can be incredibly tense to watch. So I have been told. I found the actual Phillies game in question incredibly boring. The other tens of thousands of spectators disagreed. Nevertheless, we had a lot of fun that night.

I can actually "get" that if soccer is not part of your sports culture, it will be difficult to appreciate.

-----------------

Ties make soccer more interesting. For large disparity between teams, a tie will be experienced as a sort-of-win for the lower ranked team, and as a loss for the higher ranked team. In soccer, large disparities are very common, even within leagues. There is a >10-times difference in budget between teams in the highest Dutch soccer league, last year it ranged between 62 and 5 million Euros. A similar difference can be found in European matches, where top teams have budgets up to about half a billion; in some extreme cases more than the entire budget of the richest Dutch team is spent on individual players.... Playing for a draw is pretty much often the only chance for success.

[Jack Rudd]

One notable sport, in the context of draws and ties, is Test/First-Class cricket, where not only do draws and ties exist, but those are the names of two different outcomes.

(Explanation: a "tie" in cricket is where both teams finish on exactly the same total score with no batting left to come. A "draw" is where the match reaches the end of the allotted time without any result's having been reached.)

[Watno]

Soccer is part of my sport culture sadly


@Davio: I don't watch Chess games either, and watching Messi or Xavi run away from their opponents sounds even more boring than the rest of a football match.

I do see that playing football is probably interesting, but I think that's an entirely different thing.

[soulnet]

Soccer is part of my sport culture sadly

If it were, you would call it football.

[Watno]

I do in the next paragraph, but since I'm German, I usually call it "Fußball".

Also I just realized I missed agreat oppurtunizty to talk about sport "culture"

[Kuildeous]

I'm an American that prefers not to have a shared victory. That doesn't mean I won't achieve it. I just aspire to be the sole winner first and foremost.

Just look at Cosmic Encounter as an example of how you can have shared victories. It's quite possible in a 6-player game to have five players share a victory. I find that boring and really unfair to the poor sixth person (what? Unfairness in Cosmic Encounter?). Having two winners is more suspenseful, and sometimes the only way to get your victory is to invite another player along to help you plow past the majority that is blocking you.

In Dominion, I'll do hope for a sole victory, but I'm okay with a shared victory, as long as not all the players tie. If we all tie, then I feel like there needs to be a tiebreaker game, even though there's not much difference between two winners and four winners. I suppose I believe that there should be a loser, and if I can't achieve my goal of being sole winner then at least let me not be the loser.

But in the end, I just really enjoy playing (or watching) the game. I won't think any less of someone for losing, and I don't think I'm superior because I won a game. I may mock the co-winners for sharing their victory, but that's just sour grapes. I get that treatment right back.

I find futbol to be more exciting than American football just because the latter is a lot of starting and stopping while futbol keeps the action going, even if there is nothing going on. It's kind of like basketball but with significantly fewer goals scored. But I still find it boring as hell to watch. And don't even get me started on baseball.

[theory]

Maybe this belongs in the RSP sub forum, but possibly because of the Capitalist government? With it, you always feel like you have to be on top and the 'winner'? That would be my guess. I don't mind ties, but I'd usually prefer for there to be a winner.

Because the US is the only capitalist country in the world ...

The core difference between US sports and Euro sports is that US sports are about drama.  The Super Bowl is dramatic.  March Madness is dramatic.  Winning a league title?  Not dramatic (it's even an insult).  Ties?  Definitely not dramatic.

[Davio]

Maybe it's the most capitalistic.

Netherlands is more social capitalistic, meaning: Sure, we like winning, but we can live with a tie.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I never thought about it before, but one of the most personally fulfilling accomplishments in Dominion is to claw back from behind a guy and end the game on a tie. I mean, winning from behind is cool, too, but when you have to sit there and puzzle it out to get exactly enough points to not lose, man that's a rush.

[eHalcyon]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

[jonts26]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

But curling somehow is.

[dondon151]

The core difference between US sports and Euro sports is that US sports are about drama.

Whereas in the US, drama happens between teams, in Europe, apparently it happens between fans...

[yudantaiteki]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

A lot of Americans don't either.  Baseball has fallen off dramatically in popularity.  It was created during an era when average people were starting to get lots of leisure time but there still wasn't a huge amount of leisure entertainment available.  I personally find it way too slow moving and boring to watch, and I also don't like the fact that the huge number of games they play each season means that each individual game is nearly meaningless in the overall picture.  I have the same problem with the NBA, though.

The only professional sports I watch regularly are (American) football, and college basketball.  I also watch the Tour de France in July but I do cycling myself and I can understand why people would find it boring.  American football is by far my favorite spectator sport, though, and watching football is one of my favorite leisure activities.

[Lekkit]

[eHalcyon]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

But curling somehow is.

I don't know if you are serious or sarcastic here... but yes! I watched curling for the first time I think during the Canadian-hosted Olympics. It was surprisingly captivating.

[gman314]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

But curling somehow is.

The only people who really like watching curling are those who play it themselves. (Myself included.)

And speaking of curling, it has just about the worst tie-breaker system ever. In the event of a tie at any sort of tournament, the tie-breaker is to play an extra end. But since last shot is a HUGE advantage, and the team who just scored to tie it up goes first, the ruling in a tie is basically that whoever was up most recently wins. (Although, sometimes the team with first shot steals the extra end, but that's relatively is.)

[eHalcyon]

I don't go out of my way to watch it, but I enjoy curling without paying it myself. Quite a few of my friends do too.

[HiveMindEmulator]

FWIW, I'm an American, and I don't really mind ties, but I do like to see overtime and extra innings. In general I feel like if a game is close enough that it resulted in a tie, there is added excitement in seeing more of it, not to avoid a tie, but to have more of the game.

What I don't like is forced tie-breakers that have little to do with the actual game. Going to penalty kicks in soccer is the absolute worst. It has nearly nothing to do with actual soccer. There's no running, passing, dribbling, defending, spacing the field, and the keeper can't even come off the line! The only thing it has to with soccer is that involves kicking a ball. It would be like breaking ties in baseball by taking turns swinging a bat at a pinata... But even though it's not related to the game, a lot of people like this anyway, just because it's exciting to have the game on the line. It's the same reason people like to gamble in casinos. Regardless of the game you're playing, you're invested in something and will be thrilled if you win.

The NHL recently decided to have shootouts in regular season games, and a few years before, they added something like a shootout to college football. Each team takes turns getting the ball at the opponents 25 and scoring until someone screws up... It's a little more related to the game than a shootout, but not enough (imo). It's just about red-zone offense and defense, neglecting anything about working for field position. And to make it even more insulting, they add the score to game score instead of having a separate parenthetical score like in other sports with shootouts! Can you imagine if a soccer match scoring 1-1(5-3) was instead called 6-4?

I think the NFL way of breaking american football ties is much better. Just play an extra period sudden death (with a restriction to prevent the game from ending on a field goal by the first team to possess the ball). This makes it essentially like continuing the game with the same rules (a little different since you're more likely to settle for a field goal than go for a touchdown). There are still ties, but rarely, and it's okay. I'm actually watching more football, not a shootout. However, most other Americans I talk to like the college football method better and it blows my mind... I guess it's just the general love of scoring...

[theory]

The NFL overtime format suffers from its inane first-possession rules.  I think that's why people tend to prefer the NCAA format (also because it's like the Red Zone, but live).

I would be a fan of the NFL overtime rules if they allowed each coach to bid for starting possession; whichever team was willing to start further back gets the ball first.

[greatexpectations]

I personally find it way too slow moving and boring to watch,

agreed, i dislike american football too.

[enfynet]

I prefer playing any sport to watching it. With that said, I enjoy watching many different sports because I understand what goes into playing a lot of them. While I don't necessarily understand the professional strategy and play-calling in the hyper-active sports like soccer(football), basketball, or hockey; I do understand the fundamentals and the rules enough to appreciate the skill involved in professional matches.

I do prefer having a determined winner over a tie.

[Lekkit]

I recently found out that they don't do Golden Goal (Sudden Death) in soccer anymore because it promotes boring safe play. I prefer adding some extra time rather than "whoever takes the least risks have a higher chance of winning". I think it was smart of them to not use Golden Goal anymore.

[HiveMindEmulator]

The NFL overtime format suffers from its inane first-possession rules.  I think that's why people tend to prefer the NCAA format (also because it's like the Red Zone, but live).

I would be a fan of the NFL overtime rules if they allowed each coach to bid for starting possession; whichever team was willing to start further back gets the ball first.

There was only really a problem when the kickoff was from the 30 yard line. The team who possessed the ball first would also have a field position advantage, making the overall advantage of winning the coin toss too great. There was no significant advantage when the kickoff used to be from the 40, and it appears that there is none now that it's from the 35 and the first-possession field goal restriction is implemented (though there's not that much data yet).

The problem fans have is partially with perception. Fans feel like having the ball is the most important thing and don't care about field position. They boo when their team opts to punt rather than to go for it on 4th and 2 from their own 20. Even if you're ~50% to make it, the risk is giving up free points vs the reward of getting a few more downs (after which you are reasonably likely to end up punting anyway).

Your idea about bidding for field position makes some sense in that it emphasizes the importance of it, but it's arguably even more convoluted (and non-football related) than the current method and could easily result in tied bids.

I recently found out that they don't do Golden Goal (Sudden Death) in soccer anymore because it promotes boring safe play. I prefer adding some extra time rather than "whoever takes the least risks have a higher chance of winning". I think it was smart of them to not use Golden Goal anymore.

With no golden goal, you have an increased risk of a tie, and you lose out on the chance to have a "walk-off" kind of play, which is a nice moment. But you get overall better play. So again this comes down to the trade-off between the chance of dramatic moments and average quality of entertainment. I think the trend in America is the opposite since we prefer the dramatics, hence our love of shootouts...

[yudantaiteki]

I think the NFL way of breaking american football ties is much better. Just play an extra period sudden death (with a restriction to prevent the game from ending on a field goal by the first team to possess the ball). This makes it essentially like continuing the game with the same rules (a little different since you're more likely to settle for a field goal than go for a touchdown). There are still ties, but rarely, and it's okay. I'm actually watching more football, not a shootout. However, most other Americans I talk to like the college football method better and it blows my mind... I guess it's just the general love of scoring...

I agree.  I'm not a fan of the NCAA one because college football games are already long enough, and the NCAA overtime takes too much of the regular football stuff out of the game.

I like the NFL sudden death, although I don't mind the addition of either the "first to 6" or "guaranteed possession for each side" rule.  I don't really have a problem with the pure sudden death, though. IMO if you couldn't score more points than the other team in 60 minutes, and you can't stop their offense on an additional drive, you deserve the loss.  If you're going to complain that your team's offense didn't get a chance, they had 60 minutes of chances.

[Lekkit]

With no golden goal, you have an increased risk of a tie, and you lose out on the chance to have a "walk-off" kind of play, which is a nice moment. But you get overall better play. So again this comes down to the trade-off between the chance of dramatic moments and average quality of entertainment. I think the trend in America is the opposite since we prefer the dramatics, hence our love of shootouts...

What I forgot to say was that they actually did add two extra halfs that are shorter than a regular half. That way you are guaranteed to see half an hour of extra play and if one team is on top after that, the game ends. Instead of ending as soon as one team scores. This way you avoid ties and promote "normal" play. If the teams are still tied after the extra play time, you go to shoot offs.

[greatexpectations]

If the teams are still tied after the extra play time, you go to shoot offs.

except in some cup tournaments where away goals will still win it in extra time. (edge cases woo)

[Archetype]

Maybe this belongs in the RSP sub forum, but possibly because of the Capitalist government? With it, you always feel like you have to be on top and the 'winner'? That would be my guess. I don't mind ties, but I'd usually prefer for there to be a winner.

Because the US is the only capitalist country in the world ...

Maybe it's the most capitalistic.

This. I should have clarified.

[Warfreak2]

Having tie-breaking mechanics as part of a game can serve to increase the strategic depth; if a slight advantage can be important because it breaks what would otherwise be a tie, then a small difference in skill can be important, so the range of skills is more granular, so the game has more depth. Something similar can be said for game mechanics which compensate for first-player advantage.

[Twistedarcher]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

[jonts26]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html

[HiveMindEmulator]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

The brilliant part is that you know when the action is going to occur, which makes it a great sport for casual viewers. You don't have to pay too much attention to catch all the action.

[Synthesizer]

The core difference between US sports and Euro sports is that US sports are about drama.

Whereas in the US, drama happens between teams, in Europe, apparently it happens between fans...

But anyway, Euro sports are just as much about drama. It's just that drama != goals. The pushing and shoving and holding and pinching in the goal area before a corner kick in soccer is drama. The pushing and shoving and holding and pinching to obtain a good position for the final sprint in cycling is drama. (hey, that sounds similar Someone setting a good time in speed skating, and then having to wait for 20 more contestants to finish their races, showing faster split times but ending slower is drama (though arguably, the US had the best speed skater ever with Eric Heiden, and also Shani Davis kicks ass). The tension before a penalty corner in field hockey is drama.

It's not really clear to me what works where - basketball and hockey have all the right ingredients to be popular in the Netherlands - but they aren't. Basketball is popular more in the south of Europe; hockey more in the north and east. Field hockey and soccer have all the ingredients to be popular in the US - but they aren't. For some reason there is only one tiny little country in the northwest of Europe that seems to care much about speed skating, and then one larger but less populated that sort of cares (the US has more golds but less total medals. Oh, and roughly 20 times higher population.)

[Davio]

Well, I would argue that history plays a big part.

Football/soccer in its current form comes from England so it was easy to spread to the Netherlands.
But when American football developed out of football it was still in its old form with handling the ball with your hands.

Even though some American sports could have the right ingredients to become popular in the Netherlands, I think Netherlands is too small a country to have that many popular sports. There are already like 3.5 million active football players...

[yudantaiteki]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

But the pauses in action are necessary for the overall game.  During the pauses, the offense is setting up a play that the defense has to get ready to try to read.  Once you understand the strategy behind the game, there is excitement in seeing how the formations are being set up by each team even if they're not moving at that moment.  About the only time that the teams are literally doing nothing is during time-outs or when they're trying to run down the clock.

(This does not count commercials, of which there are way too many.)

In any case it's often hard to make a valid criticism of a sport you don't know much about.  I don't watch soccer or really understand more than the basic "kick it into the net".  When I do watch a game, it just looks like people kicking a ball back and forth, until maybe one of them happens to kick it in the net once or twice during a 90 minute game.  I know there's more than this to the game if I actually took the time to understand what the strategy was. 

[Tables]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

This is kind of an issue I've always had with American Football. So little of the time is spent doing stuff. I'm not really a Football fan (well... I couldn't care much less for most sports in general) but at least Football can be somewhat entertaining, with the fact there's always action, potential plays are created regularly, there's attacks on goal probably once per minute or once per two minutes or so, but mainly, it's that constant action that's good. American Football is... so little going on. And even when there is action (for seconds at a time), most of it is pretty comparable to just dribbling around in football - people just trying to push a couple more feet up the field etc. (note: I don't know most of the rules of American Football, most of what I know is pop culture and my housemate telling me a few basics).

[dondon151]

but mainly, it's that constant action that's good.

I'd argue that it's the constant action that's bad, or rather, unappealing to people who don't like football. The problem is that most of what happens on the field tends to seem inconsequential. Players lose control of the ball, they kick the ball away, the ball goes out of bounds, etc. I can't speak for everyone else, but I know for a fact that I can't watch football because it is just a constant stream of monotony.

On the other hand, one expects crazy things to happen in American football, and they usually do happen a few times per game. I can't condone supporting the sport anymore after all of the discoveries about brain damage, though.

[Twistedarcher]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

The brilliant part is that you know when the action is going to occur, which makes it a great sport for casual viewers. You don't have to pay too much attention to catch all the action.

I think this is a key point -- I watch soccer and (american) football in completely different company. I usually watch football with my friends, and more of a social activity than as a sports fan these days -- I still know more than enough about everything that's going on, and follow the league during the week, but I'm just far less interested in actually analyzing the game.

I'm much more likely to watch soccer alone, on the other hand. The tactics and formations are more interesting to watch, and I find myself glued to the screen much more than I do with football. I also never get tired of watching the skill of the players -- I'm always amazed at how easy they make such difficult things look (controlling a pass from 50 yards away, putting the perfect spin on the pass so it can get to the right spot, etc.)

[Kirian]

But the pauses in action are necessary for the overall game.  During the pauses, the offense is setting up a play that the defense has to get ready to try to read.  Once you understand the strategy behind the game, there is excitement in seeing how the formations are being set up by each team even if they're not moving at that moment.  About the only time that the teams are literally doing nothing is during time-outs or when they're trying to run down the clock.

While on some level you have a point, if we're going to cast football as a game of tactics and bluffing, well, I bet I can create a board game that takes that into account and rolls dice for strength/dexterity, that has a lot less downtime.

[greatexpectations]

ITT: people make most of the exact same arguments about different sports but frame it so that their sport is perceived better.

[shMerker]

But the pauses in action are necessary for the overall game.  During the pauses, the offense is setting up a play that the defense has to get ready to try to read.  Once you understand the strategy behind the game, there is excitement in seeing how the formations are being set up by each team even if they're not moving at that moment.  About the only time that the teams are literally doing nothing is during time-outs or when they're trying to run down the clock.

While on some level you have a point, if we're going to cast football as a game of tactics and bluffing, well, I bet I can create a board game that takes that into account and rolls dice for strength/dexterity, that has a lot less downtime.

But if that's true...

[dondon151]

While on some level you have a point, if we're going to cast football as a game of tactics and bluffing, well, I bet I can create a board game that takes that into account and rolls dice for strength/dexterity, that has a lot less downtime.

Only if this board game involves hunks of flesh crashing into each other.

[yudantaiteki]

And even when there is action (for seconds at a time), most of it is pretty comparable to just dribbling around in football - people just trying to push a couple more feet up the field etc

Right, and that's what I meant in my previous post -- I'm well aware that a lot of people who don't understand football watch it and just see a bunch of people running into each other.  But that's like me watching soccer -- I don't get any of the formations or technical skill or whatever, it just looks like people kicking a ball back and forth.  I've never really made an attempt to understand or like soccer because I spend enough time watching football and basketball, and I don't really need another sport to watch.

(As for the "why not play sports instead of watch", I feel like that's similar to "Why don't you write a book instead of reading them")

[gman314]

While on some level you have a point, if we're going to cast football as a game of tactics and bluffing, well, I bet I can create a board game that takes that into account and rolls dice for strength/dexterity, that has a lot less downtime.

Only if this board game involves hunks of flesh crashing into each other.

The pieces are hunks of meat, which you slide at each other like crokinole pieces.

[Tables]

I like how this thread has turned from a discussion on draws to an argument about different sports.

[Awaclus]

I like how this thread has turned from a discussion on draws to an argument about different sports.

I don't. 

I generally don't mind threads getting derailed, but I don't like sports and I feel like the discussion on draws wasn't over yet. But it's not like I have anything more to say on the subject though, I just still think that the point of games is to win them (in theory) and a tie means that nobody wins.

[DG]

I just still think that the point of games is to win them (in theory) and a tie means that nobody wins.

The point of games is to enjoy them and if you draw you can enjoy the result just as much as your opponent. The same can be said for supporters.

[Awaclus]

I just still think that the point of games is to win them (in theory) and a tie means that nobody wins.

The point of games is to enjoy them and if you draw you can enjoy the result just as much as your opponent. The same can be said for supporters.

"The point of games is winning" was a bad choice of words earlier. It's true that the point of playing games is having fun (at least for most people). What I meant was really "playing a game [in which winning is the goal] = trying to win" (this also means that the point of trying to win is not winning, it's having fun).

I enjoy playing a game, not the result. I couldn't care less if I won or lost after the game is over, because it's just a game and now we're back in real life. A tie is not bad when it happens, but if a tie is likely to happen, it's more difficult to win and that, in my opinion, makes playing the game less interesting because winning is already pretty difficult - on average, you have to retry exactly once in two-player games if there are no ties, and retrying exactly once is probably close to the optimal difficulty level for maximum interestingness for my tastes. In Dominion, a tie happens probably once every 50 or so games, and that's not too often, but in Tic Tac Toe, a tie happens basically every time and it's probably the most boring game ever.

[dondon151]

Because tic-tac-toe is as deep a game as Dominion.

[Jack Rudd]

In Dominion, a tie happens probably once every 50 or so games, and that's not too often, but in Tic Tac Toe, a tie happens basically every time and it's probably the most boring game ever.

A tie happens basically every time in Tic Tac Toe because the game has been solved, so that one's a bit of a red herring. There are plenty of games which are perfectly playable despite a high draw percentage - chess, for example, has a draw rate of something like 46% at the top level, and it's a game where the prospect of a draw actually adds to the strategic depth.

[Awaclus]

Because tic-tac-toe is as deep a game as Dominion.

It's not. And I believe the lack of depth is a direct result from the fact that it's always a tie. There's a variation of it with an unlimited grid and you need five in a row instead of three. Now this variation is actually very deep. Not as deep as Dominion, but I'd say we are talking about Carcassonne base game level of depth here. And the main difference between Tic-Tac-Toe and this variation is simply that ties never happen.

Actually this game is very similar to the variation I'm talking about, except it's not as interesting because the grid isn't unlimited, and they hold world champs, it's deep enough for that.

Jack Rudd: Yes, at the top level. Gaming doesn't have to be fun at the top level. Would it have become so popular if there was a draw 46% of the time when casual players played it? I very much doubt that.

[Watno]

I doubt tic tac toe would be more interesting if the starting player always wins.

[Awaclus]

I doubt tic tac toe would be more interesting if the starting player always wins.

Because it's impossible for the p2 to win.

[Watno]

Yes, but that shows that the problem isn't that the outcome is always a tie, the problem is that it's always the same.

[Awaclus]

Yes, but that shows that the problem isn't that the outcome is always a tie, the problem is that it's always the same.

Actually it is more interesting if the starting player always wins, because if you toss a coin or play Rock, Paper, Scissors to see who goes first, the winner is not always the same guy. Yes, it's still very boring, but it's significantly less boring now. In fact, RPS is a fine way of passing time when another person is around and you have nothing better to do.

[michaeljb]

And the main difference between Tic-Tac-Toe and this variation is simply that ties never happen.

Yes, it must definitely be about the ties, not the fact that Tic-Tac-Toe has been solved.

[Twistedarcher]

I like how this thread has turned from a discussion on draws to an argument about different sports.

I don't. 

I generally don't mind threads getting derailed, but I don't like sports and I feel like the discussion on draws wasn't over yet. But it's not like I have anything more to say on the subject though, I just still think that the point of games is to win them (in theory) and a tie means that nobody wins.

The point of soccer specifically is to accumulate the most points over the season, not to win every game. To that end, ties are perfectly acceptable.

In the context of a board game, of course the goal is as much fun as possible, but a lot of the fun comes in pursuit of victory.

I think ties should be thought of as shared victories rather than shared losses. You get a share of the victory, which is of course inferior to the whole thing, but still better than a loss.

[Awaclus]

How fun would Dominion be, if instead of counting the VPs, you would get one VP 2.0 for every 50 VP you have and then you counted the VP 2.0s to see who wins? Also, you could remove the rule about the player with the fewer turns winning ties.

[eHalcyon]

How fun would Dominion be, if instead of counting the VPs, you would get one VP 2.0 for every 50 VP you have and then you counted the VP 2.0s to see who wins? Also, you could remove the rule about the player with the fewer turns winning ties.

This is such a strawman argument, wow.

Tic tac toe is not boring because of ties; it's boring because the entire game is solved. All possible game states are easily summarised in a single xkcd comic! Giving p1 100% win rate (maybe by letting him make 2 first moves) does not make the game more interesting. The outcome is still predetermined.

Chess, add mentioned, had a high rate of draws. But the way the game plays is not predetermined. It may result in draws often, but it gets there a different way every time. That's why it's still interesting.

[eHalcyon]

Oh, and that Dominion variant is not less interesting because there are more ties. It is just more frustrating because it has been artificially stunted such that large differences in performance are meaningless.

[soulnet]

You can always break ties in Dominion by tosing a coin. Then, there is value in getting a tie if you were losing because you suddenly have a 50% chance of winning, and you were ahead and could not close it with a win and settled for a tie, then too bad, you lost 50%. I don't see that the changed game has ANY more depth or is any more fun the game as it is now, but if the name "tie", "draw", "shared victory" or "shared loss" is too annoying for someone, then this should take care of it with minimum extra effort and time. You can toss a VP token if you want the entire game to be included in a Dominion box.

[Watno]

But both sides of a VP token look the same, so that doesn't work.

[Awaclus]

Oh, and that Dominion variant is not less interesting because there are more ties. It is just more frustrating because it has been artificially stunted such that large differences in performance are meaningless.

It is indeed more frustrating, but that doesn't have anything to do with artificiality or meaninglessness and has everything to do with the fact that winning it is almost impossible, because most of the time nobody wins.

[eHalcyon]

Your argument was that the game is less interesting if ties are common.  You used tic-tac-toe as an example, versus Dominion.  And you argued that tic-tac-toe lacked depth because ties are common.

People pointed out that it is not a fair comparison because Dominion is very deep and tic-tac-toe is not.  And note that tic-tac-toe does not lack depth due to ties, but because it is an extremely simple game that is SOLVED.  Chess was brought up as a counter-example as another game where ties are common.  Do you argue the depth in Chess?

We are talking about depth.  Your Dominion variant has just as much depth as regular Dominion, because the core game mechanics are exactly the same.  The fact that ties are more common in your variant does NOT change the depth of the game.  Likewise, the game is just as interesting, because the gameplay is still the same.  But the game is much more FRUSTRATING, because the final score can be a draw EVEN THOUGH one player vastly outperforms the other(s).  Someone could piledrive the Provinces and still end up tying.

The problem with the variant is NOT that ties are common, but that ties are common in spite of a large skill disparity.  And that does not make the game less deep or less interesting.  It just makes the game more frustrating.  The frustration is not because winning is difficult, but because you can't win even when you do way better.  There is a difference.

And yes, it is artificial and meaningless because you impose a filter on the scoring mechanism that makes no sense at all.  Yeah, draws are horrible if they occur even though one player is much better at the game.  That doesn't say anything at all about draws in general.

[greatexpectations]

if we are going to discuss draws in dominion i would love to see some data on how often and when they actually occur. i drew 1.85% of my ~5300 2-player games on isotropic, 1.87% from seat 1 and 1.83% from seat 2. so i drew slightly less often when i had control over that decision, but i am not sure how any of this compares to the community at large.

i have my guesses on the results, but i would be interested to see:
- draws in regular games versus alt-vp, colony, and vp chip games
- draws in BM vs. engine games
- whether the lower or higher ranked player in the game is P2 for the draw

[shMerker]

But both sides of a VP token look the same, so that doesn't work.

As an aside I like to use a VP token to decide who goes first. I just flip or spin it on the table and whoever it ends up pointing at starts the game.

[sudgy]

But both sides of a VP token look the same, so that doesn't work.

As an aside I like to use a VP token to decide who goes first. I just flip or spin it on the table and whoever it ends up pointing at starts the game.

I always take a province and an estate (or something else if I feel like it), mix them up, then have the other person choose one.  If they choose the province, they go first.

[Davio]

if we are going to discuss draws in dominion i would love to see some data on how often and when they actually occur. i drew 1.85% of my ~5300 2-player games on isotropic, 1.87% from seat 1 and 1.83% from seat 2. so i drew slightly less often when i had control over that decision, but i am not sure how any of this compares to the community at large.

i have my guesses on the results, but i would be interested to see:
- draws in regular games versus alt-vp, colony, and vp chip games
- draws in BM vs. engine games
- whether the lower or higher ranked player in the game is P2 for the draw

I drew ~2% of my ~4100 games, slightly more as 1st player, but a negligible amount more (just 5 games).

[Awaclus]

Your argument was that the game is less interesting if ties are common.  You used tic-tac-toe as an example, versus Dominion.  And you argued that tic-tac-toe lacked depth because ties are common.

People pointed out that it is not a fair comparison because Dominion is very deep and tic-tac-toe is not.  And note that tic-tac-toe does not lack depth due to ties, but because it is an extremely simple game that is SOLVED.  Chess was brought up as a counter-example as another game where ties are common.  Do you argue the depth in Chess?

It does lack depth, but that's not because ties are common - it's the reason why ties are common. Ties are much less common in casual level chess than pro level chess, because the difference in skill is bigger. In pro games, the difference in skill is smaller, but it's still obviously there. The reason for chess's high tie rate is not lack of depth though.

We are talking about depth.  Your Dominion variant has just as much depth as regular Dominion, because the core game mechanics are exactly the same.  The fact that ties are more common in your variant does NOT change the depth of the game.  Likewise, the game is just as interesting, because the gameplay is still the same.  But the game is much more FRUSTRATING, because the final score can be a draw EVEN THOUGH one player vastly outperforms the other(s).  Someone could piledrive the Provinces and still end up tying.

The problem with the variant is NOT that ties are common, but that ties are common in spite of a large skill disparity.  And that does not make the game less deep or less interesting.  It just makes the game more frustrating.  The frustration is not because winning is difficult, but because you can't win even when you do way better.  There is a difference.

And yes, it is artificial and meaningless because you impose a filter on the scoring mechanism that makes no sense at all.  Yeah, draws are horrible if they occur even though one player is much better at the game.  That doesn't say anything at all about draws in general.

Maybe you were talking about depth, but I wasn't. I was talking about difficulty. The game is much more frustrating, because it's much more difficult to win: even if you're a very good player, you still end up not winning most of the time. The same can be said about the video game I Wanna Be The Guy, which is extremely difficult, so even if you're a very good player, you still end up not winning most of the time. And while watching extremely skilled players beating I Wanna Be The Guy is interesting, playing the game is not, because I'm not extremely skilled and there's no way I can beat it, and knowing that I'm going to fail anyway is not interesting. And it's not interesting to play a game that's way too easy, either. For me, about 1 retry required for winning the game is a pretty good level of difficulty, and I'm sure that some others prefer more difficult games. In 2-player board games, it's pretty close to that on average assuming that I'm an average player (which is true for most board games).

Of course it is artificial and meaningless. But it doesn't matter that it's artificial and meaningless. J. S. Bach composed a lot of artificial and meaningless songs, but some of those songs are pretty good anyway. Just because something is artificial and meaningless doesn't mean it's bad, my Dominion variant is bad for whole other reasons.

[StrongRhino]

But both sides of a VP token look the same, so that doesn't work.

As an aside I like to use a VP token to decide who goes first. I just flip or spin it on the table and whoever it ends up pointing at starts the game.

I always take a province and an estate (or something else if I feel like it), mix them up, then have the other person choose one.  If they choose the province, they go first.

Bah. I throw them up in the air, and whoever gets the most goes first, like all of us real pros do

[soulnet]

I've never won the arcade version of Tetris, Pac-Man or Wonder Boy (until emulators in which you can save the game) and I had plenty of fun playing them as a kid. And I never beat my sister in law in chess (NEVER, she is regional champion and I'm just a casual player) and I can still have fun playing with her.

And the best game in the world has no winner or loser.

[dondon151]

And the best game in the world has no winner or loser.

... Calvinball?

[sudgy]

And the best game in the world has no winner or loser.

... Calvinball?

I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING

[liopoil]

what? calvinball may be the best game in the world, but it certainly has a winner and a loser...

[ashersky]

I've never won the arcade version of Tetris, Pac-Man or Wonder Boy (until emulators in which you can save the game) and I had plenty of fun playing them as a kid. And I never beat my sister in law in chess (NEVER, she is regional champion and I'm just a casual player) and I can still have fun playing with her.

And the best game in the world has no winner or loser.

Unless you tied the computer in Tetris, Pac-Man, or Wonder Boy, I'm not sure how those apply to this argument you all are having.  Unless you are defending the "draws suck" argument, since what I'm getting out of all of this is winning/losing = more fun than ties.

On a side note: ironic to me is that the win/lose vs. tie argument at one point fell into Americans vs. Europeans (or the World), using soccer as the ultimate example.  But there is a sport where I think the argument gets flipped on its head: auto racing.  Americans love NASCAR (extremely dull for most of the event, just driving in circles, waiting for crashs; like waiting for goals in soccer), while Europeans (and everyone else) love F1 (curves, curves everywhere, non-stop action; like what Americans want in sports with scoring).

NASCAR : F1 :: Soccer : Football

[liopoil]

americans love NASCAR? no... I don't think so...

[Watno]

To me F1 is rather: Cars drive in circles. You can't wish that someone crashes because that would be pretty bad. Nothing happens.

[Twistedarcher]

americans love NASCAR? no... I don't think so...

Oh yessss we do.

[soulnet]

Unless you tied the computer in Tetris, Pac-Man, or Wonder Boy, I'm not sure how those apply to this argument you all are having.  Unless you are defending the "draws suck" argument, since what I'm getting out of all of this is winning/losing = more fun than ties.

I was counterargumenting the fact that impossibility of win is incompatible or has an inherent negative impact on the fun.

[ashersky]

Unless you tied the computer in Tetris, Pac-Man, or Wonder Boy, I'm not sure how those apply to this argument you all are having.  Unless you are defending the "draws suck" argument, since what I'm getting out of all of this is winning/losing = more fun than ties.

I was counterargumenting the fact that impossibility of win is incompatible or has an inherent negative impact on the fun.

Gotcha.  That makes sense, and I agree.

[Awaclus]

I've never won the arcade version of Tetris, Pac-Man or Wonder Boy (until emulators in which you can save the game) and I had plenty of fun playing them as a kid. And I never beat my sister in law in chess (NEVER, she is regional champion and I'm just a casual player) and I can still have fun playing with her.

And the best game in the world has no winner or loser.

Then you are obviously one of those people who like more difficult games than I do. What's the best game in the world?

[ipofanes]

If we actually want to do something about ties in football, there are no real good ways to deal with it. A regular game lasts 90 minutes. In knockout systems, two halfs of 15 minutes are added with a penalty shootout as a last resort. Neither is very appealing. Adding that much extra time just makes the players more tired and the game while tense less skilled in the end. And the penalty shootout is pretty much a lottery. I don't think there really is a way that is clearly better.

Can't find the source right now but I think I remember that your Bondscoach once suggested to change the rules that Golden Goal is reintroduced, but additionally during extension every five minutes each team has to retire a player from the pitch (until it's one on one). This sounded like gladiator fights to me.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I've never won the arcade version of Tetris, Pac-Man or Wonder Boy (until emulators in which you can save the game) and I had plenty of fun playing them as a kid. And I never beat my sister in law in chess (NEVER, she is regional champion and I'm just a casual player) and I can still have fun playing with her.

And the best game in the world has no winner or loser.

Then you are obviously one of those people who like more difficult games than I do. What's the best game in the world?

I think he means doing it.

[soulnet]

I think he means doing it.

Man, he/she is under-aged, so probably never heard of that .

[Kirian]

I've never won the arcade version of Tetris, Pac-Man or Wonder Boy (until emulators in which you can save the game) and I had plenty of fun playing them as a kid. And I never beat my sister in law in chess (NEVER, she is regional champion and I'm just a casual player) and I can still have fun playing with her.

And the best game in the world has no winner or loser.

Then you are obviously one of those people who like more difficult games than I do. What's the best game in the world?

I think he means doing it.

I don't think that falls under most reasonable definitions of the word game, which usually implies some sort of competition.

[Kuildeous]

I think he means doing it.

I don't think that falls under most reasonable definitions of the word game, which usually implies some sort of competition.

"Biting's excellent. It's like kissing, only there's a winner!"

</who>

[Drab Emordnilap]

I don't think that falls under most reasonable definitions of the word game, which usually implies some sort of competition.

It's a cooperative game! 

[soulnet]

It's a cooperative game! 

True, and it can also be a solitaire .

BTW, if there are more than 2 people, I can imagine some competition going on. If you see newly born pups, they usually compete for getting to the breasts and being fed.

[DStu]

It's a cooperative game! 

True, and it can also be a solitaire .

Max Raabe might disagree /dontneedtounderstanifnotgerman

[Kirian]

I don't think that falls under most reasonable definitions of the word game, which usually implies some sort of competition.

It's a cooperative game! 

Nope, a cooperative game requires an adversary.

[soulnet]

Nope, a cooperative game requires an adversary.

Wait until you get older.

[dondon151]

Nope, a cooperative game requires an adversary.

Conception.

[Kirian]

Nope, a cooperative game requires an adversary.

Wait until you get older.

I'd love to know how old you think I am.   It's always amusing when my students try to guess and get nowhere near the mark.

Nope, a cooperative game requires an adversary.

Conception.

No, that's not an adversary.  Parenting, on the other hand, definitely is a cooperative game.

[soulnet]

I'd love to know how old you think I am.   It's always amusing when my students try to guess and get nowhere near the mark.

You can always be older. And its pretty hard to guess just by seeing your picture in an Alchemist disguise.

No, that's not an adversary.  Parenting, on the other hand, definitely is a cooperative game.

You mean cooperating with your co-parent or with your children? It seems that everyone has more or less the same goal, despite no-one noticing a lot of the time.

[Kirian]

You mean cooperating with your co-parent or with your children? It seems that everyone has more or less the same goal, despite no-one noticing a lot of the time.

An interesting way of looking at things!  I dare say sometimes the adversary is the kids, and sometimes the co-op is with everyone and life itself is the adversary.

[Watno]

it's like BSG. after the sleeper phase aka puberty there's a traitor.

[Kuildeous]

I don't think that falls under most reasonable definitions of the word game, which usually implies some sort of competition.

It's a cooperative game! 

Nope, a cooperative game requires an adversary.

There are always STDs. But your partner may not enjoy it so much if you treat it like a tower defense game.

[dondon151]

No, that's not an adversary.

Depends on whether you want to have the fun without the kids...

[Lekkit]

Max Raabe might disagree /dontneedtounderstanifnotgerman

I know of him, at least! He is pretty funny. I liked him when he hosted ESC.

[Qvist]

The whole discussion reminded me of this.