Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
46 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2  | 

Through the Ages: A New Story of Civilization» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Is it more fair to resign or to let everyone gang up rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brent Celmins
United States
Chandler
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Kelanen wrote:
Personally, I don't see this as any different to me refusing to play co-ops, or light games. Great for those that like them, but I don't, so I'd rather not play, than play a game I dislike. I feel the same way about playing TTA with the resignation rule in force.


There is a very, very wide chasm of difference between not playing a game (or type of game) because you don't like it and house ruling a game that completely warps the underlying incentive structure of the game.

Your not seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kelanen wrote:
IRL, I have only ever come across one player who thought using that rule was okay - we never played TTA with him again.

I'm going to a hazard a guess that this particular person tried leveraging the *threat* of resignation as a negotiation tool, and did so in a way that wasn't consistent with the other players' assessment of the game state, and in a way that pissed everyone off. That soured you all on resignation.

Of course, if my guess is off target, and you actually did just try and force a player who should have resigned to not resign, or allowed him to resign then closed him out of all future games, then you are just a bunch of jerks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SWxNW wrote:

There is a very, very wide chasm of difference between not playing a game (or type of game) because you don't like it and house ruling a game that completely warps the underlying incentive structure of the game.

Your not seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


*shrugs* So for me it doesn't exist, for you it does. For me, the situations are very analagous.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Benkyo wrote:

I'm going to a hazard a guess that this particular person tried leveraging the *threat* of resignation as a negotiation tool, and did so in a way that wasn't consistent with the other players' assessment of the game state, and in a way that pissed everyone off. That soured you all on resignation.

Of course, if my guess is off target, and you actually did just try and force a player who should have resigned to not resign, or allowed him to resign then closed him out of all future games, then you are just a bunch of jerks.


Nope, we were soured on resignation from first reading of the rules. That event came after many dozens of games, maybe more.

He did try to use it as a negotiating point, we explained that we thought that rule was the most abhorent we had ever seen, and none of us would ever resign - and wouldn't want to play with people that would. He maintained that if we attacked him he would resign, so we attacked him, he resigned and came last, and whilst we played other games with him, we'd never play TTA with him again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Oakley
United Kingdom
Selby
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kelanen wrote:
Benkyo wrote:

I'm going to a hazard a guess that this particular person tried leveraging the *threat* of resignation as a negotiation tool, and did so in a way that wasn't consistent with the other players' assessment of the game state, and in a way that pissed everyone off. That soured you all on resignation.

Of course, if my guess is off target, and you actually did just try and force a player who should have resigned to not resign, or allowed him to resign then closed him out of all future games, then you are just a bunch of jerks.


Nope, we were soured on resignation from first reading of the rules. That event came after many dozens of games, maybe more.

He did try to use it as a negotiating point, we explained that we thought that rule was the most abhorent we had ever seen, and none of us would ever resign - and wouldn't want to play with people that would. He maintained that if we attacked him he would resign, so we attacked him, he resigned and came last, and whilst we played other games with him, we'd never play TTA with him again.


Did you discuss and agree with all players that you were going to play TTA with a no-resignations house rule before the game began? If so, I think you are justified in your position. If not, then you are just a bunch of jerks.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Holland

North Carolina
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kelanen wrote:
SWxNW wrote:

There is a very, very wide chasm of difference between not playing a game (or type of game) because you don't like it and house ruling a game that completely warps the underlying incentive structure of the game.

Your not seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


*shrugs* So for me it doesn't exist, for you it does. For me, the situations are very analagous.


Just as long as you're aware that you are not playing TtA correctly and thus any discussion on this forum is going to be of questionable usage for you.

It's perfectly fine to play a game your way with house rules or what have you. You'll just have trouble if you ever go to a tournament or join a league for the game, but that's not a big deal, imho.

For example, some people might decide they think Corruption is a stupid rule and don't play with it, and refuse to play with anyone who wants to enforce Corruption as a rule. They're allowed to play that way, just as long as they know that's not according to the rules or the designer's intent...

I do agree that trying to use the resignation rule as a negotiation technique isn't good. And I have won games where I've lost wars/aggressions, so it's not impossible to win... But it's definitely a greater number of games that I've lost after losing multiple wars, where resignation would've saved me lots of time. (I tend to not resign unless it's extremely obvious that I'm losing and someone is still trying to War me.)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thisisnotasmile wrote:

Did you discuss and agree with all players that you were going to play TTA with a no-resignations house rule before the game began? If so, I think you are justified in your position. If not, then you are just a bunch of jerks.


No, it never occurred to us, because we'd never played with anyone before that would consider doing it. We'd played a lot of face to face TTA, and honestly never encountered it - the rule was universally reviled.

We did explain it at the point it came up though, which was the best we could do, and given our differing positions, we'd never have played that game together again anyway.

If that makes us jerks, then happy to be so. It doesn't in my mind.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brent Celmins
United States
Chandler
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
CrushU wrote:
I do agree that trying to use the resignation rule as a negotiation technique isn't good.


Negotiation is not permitted by the rules, so this would be illegal in any case. However, with an experienced group, you should get a pretty good feeling of where the line between resignation and sticking it out lies without having to resort to table talk.

For instance, considering a WoTerr near the AII-III changeover against someone who is happiness pinched and stuck in Agriculture, many experienced players would likely resign, making the war kind of toothless unless your aim was to actually knock that player out of the game entirely.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C

Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I'm very surprised to see this point of view (that it's universally bad to resign).

It doesn't happen in most games, but it's extremely unsatisfying for your strategic civ-building game to turn into "who draws the most war cards?" It's also very unsatisfying for the winner to randomly be whomever plays soonest after the player who fell behind in military.

The resignation rule, as written, elegantly fixes both of those issues. It only comes up in ~5% of games, but in those 5%, you'd be glad it's there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bcnoexceptions wrote:
I'm very surprised to see this point of view (that it's universally bad to resign).

Eh, it's just one vocal guy on BGG and his like-minded friends who can't distinguish between resignation and "bad sportsmanship". There's always one. Or in this poll, 5(?)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam B
United Kingdom
Coventry
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just want to add my take on Jonathan's truly perverse attitude towards resignation. Most people have already said what I'd want to say: that shaming other players into not doing something explicitly allowed in the rules is shocking behaviour and that disallowing resignation warps the incentive structure of the game in favour of military blowouts.

But there's another dimension to this. TtA can be a 3 hour plus game of taxing mental gymnastics. Some players have limited capacity for such prolonged mental exertion but so long as they are enjoying the game, they may stick it out. But what happens if that enjoyment evaporates, perhaps when they realise there is no hope of winning and they have become the table's military punching bag? Well, then you are forcing them to do something which may be causing them distress, from which they derive no pleasure, with the threat of future exclusion if they don't grin and bear it.

Disallowing resignation doesn't just make you a jerk, it makes you ableist.

More long games should follow TtA's lead and write resignation into their rules structure.

The one thing I agree with Jonathan on is that there are all sorts of valid reasons for choosing not to play games with certain people. For instance, I'd never want to play any game with an ableist jerk.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam B
United Kingdom
Coventry
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
esabatine wrote:
"well at least you can resign if you are getting raped."

Please do not use rape as shorthand for "beaten in a game". It causes sexual assault victims real pain to see this term used in such a cavalier fashion.
10 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ali Cali
United States
Boston
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kelanen wrote:
aliallison wrote:

I asked this elsewhere, but I’ll ask here, too. Do you feel that the resign rules is a form of rage-quit, where the only reason is for those behind to just stop playing?


Yes I do.

I believe this is the heart of the matter. It seems they read the rules and decided that resignation was just to allow quitting without really knowing why the rule was in place. This is understandable, since not many games have resignation in the rules.

My hope is that these players would learn from us why the rule is there and reconsider their opposition. While this does not seem to be happening, it would help if we didn’t call them names.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alucard Tepes
msg tools
mbmb
I usually resign when I see no way to catch up with Strength to break one `s militiary based game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harvey Cohen
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kelanen wrote:
Benkyo wrote:
Kelanen wrote:
Quick fix for the resignation rule: Ban it! (by far the most common response in my 1500+ games)

I never play with anyone that would resign, or replay with anyone that does.

That's weird. Do you rely on military wins a lot, by any chance?


No, quite the opposite. But resigning from any game is bad sportsmanship in my book.

Face to face players feel the same, and I usually put 'No resignations' in game titles online.
I guess you have never played chess. It is considered considerate as well as a sign of good sportsmanship to resign a hopeless position and not force your opponent into going through all the boring final moves for checkmate thus playing a game that is no longer enjoyable for either player.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am a beta tester for the expansion and we started a 3 player tournament as CGE needs some more data for that player count.

I think chess is the wrong comparison.
Playing 1 vs. 1 in TTA or Chess would mean that if your opponent resigns you would've won anyway.

I usually play 2 player games but during one game of the tournament games a player resigned as he stood no chance.
At this point we could start argue if it's fair or not.
I see arguments for both sides.
If he wouldn't have resigned I would've started a War over Culture to milk him.

Another example: What if I would've done it to and he resigns at this moment? Just 7 culture would be the benefit. In this case if I would've known it I would've reconsidered my target.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Roger the Alien wrote:
Another example: What if I would've done it to and he resigns at this moment? Just 7 culture would be the benefit. In this case if I would've known it I would've reconsidered my target.

As a point of strategy, if you wouldn't be happy with a resignation result, you shouldn't start the war, unless you are really confident that the war does not actually knock them out of the running (and they will also see it the same way).
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just gave some examples why it should be differentiated between chess and TTA as there can be different player counts.
If the player in the worse position resigns, the player which has the better position benefits and wins.
This applies for chess.
I just tried to demonstrate that if a player resigns during TTA and there is more than 1 opponent, the resignation will not end the game and affect other players in different ways.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Koskinen
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Roger the Alien wrote:
I am a beta tester for the expansion and we started a 3 player tournament as CGE needs some more data for that player count.

I think chess is the wrong comparison.
Playing 1 vs. 1 in TTA or Chess would mean that if your opponent resigns you would've won anyway.

I usually play 2 player games but during one game of the tournament games a player resigned as he stood no chance.
At this point we could start argue if it's fair or not.
I see arguments for both sides.
If he wouldn't have resigned I would've started a War over Culture to milk him.

Another example: What if I would've done it to and he resigns at this moment? Just 7 culture would be the benefit. In this case if I would've known it I would've reconsidered my target.


It's the point about milking a player that the entire debate is all about. One camp thinks it's unfair to the third (and fourth in 4p) player when a player milks tons of culture from a player already in the last place. The other camp thinks building military strength should be rewarded and it's unsportsmanlike to resign as a response to a war declaration that would lead to a huge culture swing.

To me it's very simple. The game allows resignations by a rule, and also there is no mention in the rulebook that the strongest player should win. Therefore resignation is fine. And those who build excess military, and then it backfires due to not drawing wars or people resigning to their wars, should reconsider their strategy. I mean, just don't milk anyone. Build military strong enough to contend with players at even or higher score than you, so that them resigning is also a good outcome from the war.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Holland

North Carolina
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I did in fact just lose a game where I declared a war as first player against the fourth player, with a strength difference of my 95 to his 34. I was off my estimation of Age IV by 3 cards. There were still 3 cards in the deck when it got to his turn, and so he resigned instead.

(I say 'lose', though what I mean is 'came in 3rd')

So close!

(Oh and also Vlaada was in that game, so that was fun. ... He won, if you were wondering. )
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I should just have said that if playing chess and anybody resigns, the game will be over.

If doing it playing TTA (3/4 players), a resignation may result in different interactions and the game won‘t be over.

It still makes me smile that I started a debate by stating an example which happened in one of my last games.

Maybe I should‘ve been more clear that my comment was just related to chess without highlighting the milking, honestly I am fine if anybody resigns or refuses to do so and I also know all arguments as I follow this thread for a long time^^
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2  | 
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.