Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: Does 1 vs. many solve the semi-coop problem? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Quantum Jack
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are the type of person who would burn the ship to keep another player from winning MVP in a coop game, would you do the same in a 1 vs many scenario. Let the one player win to keep a teamate from getting MVP, or would you try for the team win at all costs, with mvp as your secondary goal?

If the latter, semi coops may be fixable by having a player control the "game" side. Much like overlord mode in Castle Panic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you look back on that mammoth thread, one of the big problems we had was terminology.

So, in the semi-coop model, some of us believed the rules lay out a "We all win, but win person wins more" model. Kind of like a shared payout in game theory.

Many of us also thought there was no real problem to "fix" since this is just a different payout structure than a strictly competitive game offers.

An objection to this was that the game itself cannot win, therefore "all humans lose" is a tie.

Since you don't have this in a 1 v many scenario, I don't think anyone would burn it. If you do, the other "human" wins and that is bad.

For example, throwing the game to Dracula in FoD so someone on your team doesn't "win" doesn't make the same sense that it does in Castle Panic for some people.

You are losing to a human and that is bad. In a semi-coop, you are losing to a game and some people think that doesn't count, so the "we all tie in losing" is better than one human winning.

In 1 v many, it isn't the same paradigm, I don't think.

The burning thing only works if you believe you can't lose to the game itself (or you rank such a loss "better" than losing to a human), so the loss is actually a tie. In playing another human, the same luxury isn't available.

So, if you throw the game, you have no philosophical perch on which to cling like you do with a semi-coop. It's just a petulant "throwing the game" rather than some nuanced argument of transformation between a draw and a loss.

(Yea, I don't really buy it, but I don't think anyone is going to buy throwing a 1 v many game. Who would you be throwing it to? If the answer is a "living, breathing, human being" then no dice.)

Kevin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hill
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As far as I'm concerned, co-op games are rally team solitaire, and the vast majority of them are best just played as true solitaire. There are way more problems with these games than just one player throwing it to stop others winning. They suffer from alpha player, where one person tries to take over everyone else, everyone tries to tell everyone else what to do as well. Some of my group like co-ops, so we play FoD so that they can play co-op and I don't have to. I don't think the traitor mechanic works very well either.

The best I've played is Republic of Rome, where everyone is trying to win, and everyone has a chance since fate can tank anyone. But you still have to co-operate to keep Rome afloat.

I should also add that when we have a group to play a game, it's great to play a game that _needs_ a group.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phillip Harpring
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
natsean wrote:
If you look back on that mammoth thread, one of the big problems we had was terminology.

So, in the semi-coop model, some of us believed the rules lay out a "We all win, but win person wins more" model. Kind of like a shared payout in game theory.

Many of us also thought there was no real problem to "fix" since this is just a different payout structure than a strictly competitive game offers.

An objection to this was that the game itself cannot win, therefore "all humans lose" is a tie.

Since you don't have this in a 1 v many scenario, I don't think anyone would burn it. If you do, the other "human" wins and that is bad.

For example, throwing the game to Dracula in FoD so someone on your team doesn't "win" doesn't make the same sense that it does in Castle Panic for some people.

You are losing to a human and that is bad. In a semi-coop, you are losing to a game and some people think that doesn't count, so the "we all tie in losing" is better than one human winning.

In 1 v many, it isn't the same paradigm, I don't think.

The burning thing only works if you believe you can't lose to the game itself (or you rank such a loss "better" than losing to a human), so the loss is actually a tie. In playing another human, the same luxury isn't available.

So, if you throw the game, you have no philosophical perch on which to cling like you do with a semi-coop. It's just a petulant "throwing the game" rather than some nuanced argument of transformation between a draw and a loss.

(Yea, I don't really buy it, but I don't think anyone is going to buy throwing a 1 v many game. Who would you be throwing it to? If the answer is a "living, breathing, human being" then no dice.)

Kevin


But to those people, a loss is a loss, so they would see not getting MVP (if the rules state there is one) as equally bad as losing to the human on the other side of the table. So they might still use potentially throwing the game as a bargaining chip.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Rubinstein

Long Beach
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I understand that for some people, anything other than 1st place is equal to a total loss. Semi-coops probably are not for those people.

For everyone else, semi-coops provide a totally different dynamic than one-vs-many. A dynamic that I, for instance, enjoy much more.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quantum_Jack wrote:
If you are the type of person who would burn the ship to keep another player from winning MVP in a coop game, would you do the same in a 1 vs many scenario. Let the one player win to keep a teamate from getting MVP, or would you try for the team win at all costs, with mvp as your secondary goal?

I expect the game to define players' goals, not the other way around. If the game can't define that clearly, it's a flaw in the game, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that players get into disagreements about what the goal is.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quantum_Jack wrote:
If you are the type of person who would burn the ship to keep another player from winning MVP in a coop game, would you do the same in a 1 vs many scenario. Let the one player win to keep a teamate from getting MVP, or would you try for the team win at all costs, with mvp as your secondary goal?

If the latter, semi coops may be fixable by having a player control the "game" side. Much like overlord mode in Castle Panic.
Does one of the team players win more? If so, there's still a problem. It's just less of one because there's no incentive to outright tank.

Pete (would still try to force the others to pick up his slack)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Emu Prime wrote:
natsean wrote:
If you look back on that mammoth thread, one of the big problems we had was terminology.

So, in the semi-coop model, some of us believed the rules lay out a "We all win, but win person wins more" model. Kind of like a shared payout in game theory.

Many of us also thought there was no real problem to "fix" since this is just a different payout structure than a strictly competitive game offers.

An objection to this was that the game itself cannot win, therefore "all humans lose" is a tie.

Since you don't have this in a 1 v many scenario, I don't think anyone would burn it. If you do, the other "human" wins and that is bad.

For example, throwing the game to Dracula in FoD so someone on your team doesn't "win" doesn't make the same sense that it does in Castle Panic for some people.

You are losing to a human and that is bad. In a semi-coop, you are losing to a game and some people think that doesn't count, so the "we all tie in losing" is better than one human winning.

In 1 v many, it isn't the same paradigm, I don't think.

The burning thing only works if you believe you can't lose to the game itself (or you rank such a loss "better" than losing to a human), so the loss is actually a tie. In playing another human, the same luxury isn't available.

So, if you throw the game, you have no philosophical perch on which to cling like you do with a semi-coop. It's just a petulant "throwing the game" rather than some nuanced argument of transformation between a draw and a loss.

(Yea, I don't really buy it, but I don't think anyone is going to buy throwing a 1 v many game. Who would you be throwing it to? If the answer is a "living, breathing, human being" then no dice.)

Kevin


But to those people, a loss is a loss, so they would see not getting MVP (if the rules state there is one) as equally bad as losing to the human on the other side of the table. So they might still use potentially throwing the game as a bargaining chip.
Exactly right.

Pete (would)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian M
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quantum_Jack wrote:
If you are the type of person who would burn the ship to keep another player from winning MVP in a coop game, would you do the same in a 1 vs many scenario. Let the one player win to keep a teamate from getting MVP, or would you try for the team win at all costs, with mvp as your secondary goal?

If the latter, semi coops may be fixable by having a player control the "game" side. Much like overlord mode in Castle Panic.


So instead of having all of the players competing to be the one to win, you've got all of the players competing to be the one to win, but one of them following different rules?

Can't we just call this a competitive game with asymmetric play?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
StormKnight wrote:
Quantum_Jack wrote:
If you are the type of person who would burn the ship to keep another player from winning MVP in a coop game, would you do the same in a 1 vs many scenario. Let the one player win to keep a teamate from getting MVP, or would you try for the team win at all costs, with mvp as your secondary goal?

If the latter, semi coops may be fixable by having a player control the "game" side. Much like overlord mode in Castle Panic.


So instead of having all of the players competing to be the one to win, you've got all of the players competing to be the one to win, but one of them following different rules?

Can't we just call this a competitive game with asymmetric play?
Except that there's still the problem of the so-called "team win" and determining what that's worth to you.

Pete (thinks absent that you'd be correct)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But to those people, a loss is a loss, so they would see not getting MVP (if the rules state there is one) as equally bad as losing to the human on the other side of the table. So they might still use potentially throwing the game as a bargaining chip.


How would that not just be base kingmaking or an example of a being really bad sport?

The justification for tanking, I thought, was, "If I can't win, then nobody will." It's not, "If I can't 'win', then I'll just make Kevin win instead of Pete."

The latter, I would think, would be anathema to the "Play to Win" crowd that supports tanking semi-coops. At least, it seems to be in kingmaking and revenge game threads.

In other words, you can tank to a "draw" against the game by making all humans lose, but you can't tank to a loss to one arbitrary human over another. As I said, that is either clear kingmaking or just straight up petulance.

At least that is the way it seems to me unless I am missing some nuance.

Kevin
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Freelance Police
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Main complaint I hear about "1 vs. many" is that nobody wants to play the Overlord, or that the game owner ends up being the only person who plays it.

Should be interesting to design a "semi" version, where each player plays a DM *and* a player in the party!?!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sam and Max wrote:
Main complaint I hear about "1 vs. many" is that nobody wants to play the Overlord, or that the game owner ends up being the only person who plays it.

Should be interesting to design a "semi" version, where each player plays a DM *and* a player in the party!?!

I really like the way A Study in Emerald went where it's team based, but the teams are dynamic, and you have to figure out who's on what team. Too bad it had so many sharp edges. I wish more games had the idea of emergent teams.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
natsean wrote:
Quote:
But to those people, a loss is a loss, so they would see not getting MVP (if the rules state there is one) as equally bad as losing to the human on the other side of the table. So they might still use potentially throwing the game as a bargaining chip.


How would that not just be base kingmaking or an example of a being really bad sport?

The justification for tanking, I thought, was, "If I can't win, then nobody will." It's not, "If I can't 'win', then I'll just make Kevin win instead of Pete."

The latter, I would think, would be anathema to the "Play to Win" crowd that supports tanking semi-coops. At least, it seems to be in kingmaking and revenge game threads.

That's how it seems to me too: simple kingmaking. I.e. "I can't win, but I have a choice of making the sole non-team player win, or making the winning team player win."

However many people in practice do seem to nonetheless care about rank when they can't win, and prefer to maximize their rank in case they can't get 1st place.

If someone on the team wins, then the other team members earn second place and the sole non-team player earns third=last place. That seems arguably preferable to letting the sole non-team player win, and everyone on the team gains second=last place. Either way, the kingmaker is in second place, but if the team wins, then at least second place is not last place: they still finish ahead of someone (the non-team player).

But if someone feels that only first place matters, then that argument will not sway them. In that case, it would seem that they should be logically indifferent to which of the other two players wins (the sole non-team player or the leading team player).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Karis
Finland
Helsinki
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quantum_Jack wrote:
If you are the type of person who would burn the ship to keep another player from winning MVP in a coop game, would you do the same in a 1 vs many scenario. Let the one player win to keep a teamate from getting MVP, or would you try for the team win at all costs, with mvp as your secondary goal?

If the latter, semi coops may be fixable by having a player control the "game" side. Much like overlord mode in Castle Panic.


It doesn't need fixing, since nothing is broken. Some people apparently simply don't 'get' semi-coop games, and that's alright - there's a 100 000 board games out there so those people have a good chance of finding something they *do* get, I'm sure.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Player A takes game from shelf
Player B "if I can't win I will stop you"
Player C "if I can't win I will stop you"
Player A puts game back on shelf
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
natsean wrote:
Quote:
But to those people, a loss is a loss, so they would see not getting MVP (if the rules state there is one) as equally bad as losing to the human on the other side of the table. So they might still use potentially throwing the game as a bargaining chip.


How would that not just be base kingmaking or an example of a being really bad sport?

The justification for tanking, I thought, was, "If I can't win, then nobody will." It's not, "If I can't 'win', then I'll just make Kevin win instead of Pete."

The latter, I would think, would be anathema to the "Play to Win" crowd that supports tanking semi-coops. At least, it seems to be in kingmaking and revenge game threads.

In other words, you can tank to a "draw" against the game by making all humans lose, but you can't tank to a loss to one arbitrary human over another. As I said, that is either clear kingmaking or just straight up petulance.

At least that is the way it seems to me unless I am missing some nuance.

Kevin
The semi-cooperative game communicates two very clear ways to play. You either play selfishly, 100%, because all-tie is better than someone else win. Or you play completely cooperative, 100%, because you prefer that someone win over all-tie condition, even if it isn't you. The only question there is whether all-tie is really all-tie or not, but given that, the mode of play is clear.

The 1-v-"all but one wins more" doesn't even communicate that. The gameplay is even more contradictory in this setup than in the semi-cooperative setup. I have to meet two contrdictory goals and there is no way to resolve either of them, as there is in the semi-cooperative.

Pete (thinks this ruleset is total nonsense where the semi-cooperative rules set is resolvable nonsense)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
The 1-v-"all but one wins more" doesn't even communicate that.


To be honest, I can't think of a 1 v many that has an MVP tacked on. The win conditions are usually just either the team or the individual wins.

(In Descent or Imperial Assault, one team member may wind up with more gold or a better treasure, but this isn't part of the win condition or definition.)

Which one has an MVP or a "one member of the team wins more" tier?

Kevin
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
natsean wrote:
Quote:
The 1-v-"all but one wins more" doesn't even communicate that.


To be honest, I can't think of a 1 v many that has an MVP tacked on. The win conditions are usually just either the team or the individual wins.

(In Descent or Imperial Assault, one team member may wind up with more gold or a better treasure, but this isn't part of the win condition or definition.)

Which one has an MVP or a "one member of the team wins more" tier?

Kevin
I'm pretty sure the question was purely hypothetical, but it's possible the original poster has a game in mind.

Pete (read it as a thought exercise)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wait... so the solution to "Do semi-coops work?" was to randomly pick a dude in the room (probably at some other table) and say that if the co-op players lost, Bob won?

People are weird.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quantum Jack
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The question was mainly hypothetical, but Castle panic is primarily a coopperaative game. It has a "most valuable slayer" optional rule that turns it semi coop. It also has an "overlord" optional rule that turns tthe gane into 1 vs many. If you use both optionnal rulees, you would create the hypothetical scenario.

I was just thinking about the seemi-coop delima and mused as to wether the 1 vs many would turn "team loss = a tie" into "team loss = a loss" in the minds of those for whom there is a problem.

For the record, I have no issues with semi-coops, and see tanking it as poor form. But I understand, intellectually, the thought proccess. This was just seeing if losing to a player has more effect than losing to the designer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quantum_Jack wrote:
I was just thinking about the seemi-coop delima and mused as to wether the 1 vs many would turn "team loss = a tie" into "team loss = a loss" in the minds of those for whom there is a problem.
Except that isn't the root of the problem...tanking is just one possible solution to the contradiction posed by asking people to be a team player and an individual player at the same time.

Pete (thinks the root problem remains and all you've done is eliminate one solution)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Clason
United States
Cedar Rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Imagine a casino coop with MVP game. All 5 players kick-in $10. If the team wins, the MVP gets $30 and the other players get $5 each. If the team loses, all players get zilch.

(Should really stay out of it, but I can't help myself )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian M
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
natsean wrote:
Quote:
The 1-v-"all but one wins more" doesn't even communicate that.


To be honest, I can't think of a 1 v many that has an MVP tacked on. The win conditions are usually just either the team or the individual wins.

(In Descent or Imperial Assault, one team member may wind up with more gold or a better treasure, but this isn't part of the win condition or definition.)

Which one has an MVP or a "one member of the team wins more" tier?

Kevin
I'm pretty sure the question was purely hypothetical, but it's possible the original poster has a game in mind.

Pete (read it as a thought exercise)


You might be tempted to look at Mutant Chronicles: Siege of the Citadel (the original, not the new one on KS) or Space Crusade and think they were examples of what the OP is talking about. You have a "team" of players on one thematic side - squads of marines in Space Crusade thematically facing off a single player on the other side - the alien hordes in Space Crusade.

However, while the players are thematically on teams, and interact with their "team" in different ways than the "opposing" team, you shouldn't mistake them for being cooperative. Only one player wins. There is no "if side A wins, the side A player with the most points wins". The most points wins, period, and players on side A and B are directly compared to each other.

While you may need to balance which other players you are "hurting", you can always play with the goal of optimizing your own score relative to the other players. That may well involve sacrificing the mission goal and that's totally OK. If sacrificing the mission goal gets you more points (relatively), awesome, go for it. There's one scenario in Siege of the Citadel where normally all the Doomtrooper players would mostly ignore the mission goal, because it was really hard to complete and wasn't worth as much as the personal goals.

These games can go badly if people ignore the actual victory mechanics; if people try to play Space Crusade as a team game and not worry about VP, with full marine teams the marines may well clobber the aliens, but played by the correct victory rules that doesn't matter, because just because the marines as a group did well doesn't mean any one of them scored more points than the alien player.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejclason wrote:
Imagine a casino coop with MVP game. All 5 players kick-in $10. If the team wins, the MVP gets $30 and the other players get $5 each. If the team loses, all players get zilch.

So the best the players can do is get their money back??? Lame casino! shake

With real money motivations completely change. Ever played in a poker tournament with fake money? People play for place, not for absolute dollar results. People don't generally care about losing fake money. Saying, "imagine it's real money", completely changes the motivations, and there are additional variables like how much the money is worth to individuals.

But at least in your scenario the outcomes are clearly defined, and in absolute terms players can gauge the worth of the outcomes. With games that have multiple degrees of goodness as outcomes, players are left to their devices to try to prioritize the outcomes, and anyone who claims to "see tanking it as poor form" is merely railing against those who assess a different prioritization to the subjectively relative degrees of goodness for the possible outcomes.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.