Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
39 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Eclipse» Forums » General

Subject: questions on eclipse as a multiplayer war game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Clark
Australia
Canberra
ACT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Over the last few years I have got interested in how game designs handle the 'multiplayer war game' problem. By this I mean the problems associated with handling direct attacking - I hope I can list most of the issues here:

1. The person who avoids combat wins
2. The whole game degenerates into bash-the-leader
3. The whole game stalls for 20 minutes near the end while most players have a long discussion about the best sequence of moves to stop the other player(s) from winning (Mare Nostrum, TI3)
4. The game ends abruptly due to inadvertent kingmaking (Mare Nostrum, Cyclades). i.e. one (inexperienced) player wrecks the game for everyone else by making a bad move.
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.
6. Diplomatic negotiations take FOREVER.
7. The game has a set number of turns so on the final turn everyone does silly attacks for VP maximisation (Serenissima).

Feel free to add more if you can think of any.

My question is does Eclipse suffer from any of these problems? In my opinion, the only game I have seen to handle all this well is Nexus Ops, where most of the VPs are gained through combat. My understanding is that Eclipse also rewards combat with VPs but they are hidden. It seems to me that the hidden VPs are intended to create some uncertainty about who the leader is so leader-bashing is less likely (if so, I think it is a gamey and lazy design to avoid a common problem).

Anyway, how does Eclipse fare on this? Its probably the key question for me and if Eclipse offers no new solutions to the same old problems then I will likely not bother with it.

Here are two other discussion (Cyclades and TI3) on the same issues:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/535430/cyclades-a-good-game

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/740990/ti3-as-a-multiplayer-...

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david landes
United States
oak hill
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While not the world's expert, I have played a fair number of the games you mention. I am not sure I completely agree with all your characterizations, but that's okay.

To me, the fairest critiques might be 5 and 7.

- 5 is strictly a function of playing ANY direct conflict game with that type of person, but I could definitely see it happening

- 7 - The game does have a set number of turns. I don't think this leads to "silly" attacks from a critical perspective. However, how you might conduct your final turn or two would be influenced by the knowledge that you might not have to suffer longer term consequences. Two examples, A) one can/should plan for, and afford to, drive the financial side of the economy to zero in a way that one might not if one had to finance added turns. B) one can attack a very strong, but poorly positioned neighbor and reap the rewards of it, knowing they will not have sufficient time to reposition themselves. To be fair, these are things you plan around all game, both offensively and defensively, so they are in no sense 'silly'.

I don't see the other critiques as ones that particularly apply to eclipse. Just one opinion, cheers.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jenny Nguyen
Australia
Bungarribee
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Number 7 to a certain degree, has occurred once before. One player kept throwing one of his crap ships at other players/AI ships in order to fish for last minute vps (the game let's you hold 4 vp chips). That situation actually had us all rushing to the rulebook to make sure it was legal but I'm fairly sure we interpreted '1 vp chip for participating in combat' as just that. We thought it was against the spirit of the game (throwing 1 underdeveloped ship at something you know will smash you to fill out the vp slot), but thankfully that situation hasn't occurred since we've crammed in more games over the holidays and have developed sounder strategies.

Your point on number 5 is really player/group dependent. I would tell someone like that to step away from the game, and restart without them. Whingers really annoy me, particularly as there is clearly going to be some combat involved. However, to that end, being attacked is generally not the end. You still get a vp chip for it (it could be 1-4 vp).

I'll let someone else address the rest of your points. I do not think 1-6 exist for Eclipse but I'm posting from a phone (painful).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
johnclark wrote:
1. The person who avoids combat wins
2. The whole game degenerates into bash-the-leader
3. The whole game stalls for 20 minutes near the end while most players have a long discussion about the best sequence of moves to stop the other player(s) from winning (Mare Nostrum, TI3)
4. The game ends abruptly due to inadvertent kingmaking (Mare Nostrum, Cyclades). i.e. one (inexperienced) player wrecks the game for everyone else by making a bad move.
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.
6. Diplomatic negotiations take FOREVER.
7. The game has a set number of turns so on the final turn everyone does silly attacks for VP maximisation (Serenissima).

Feel free to add more if you can think of any.

My question is does Eclipse suffer from any of these problems? In my opinion, the only game I have seen to handle all this well is Nexus Ops, where most of the VPs are gained through combat. My understanding is that Eclipse also rewards combat with VPs but they are hidden. It seems to me that the hidden VPs are intended to create some uncertainty about who the leader is so leader-bashing is less likely (if so, I think it is a gamey and lazy design to avoid a common problem).

Anyway, how does Eclipse fare on this? Its probably the key question for me and if Eclipse offers no new solutions to the same old problems then I will likely not bother with it.

Here are two other discussion (Cyclades and TI3) on the same issues:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/535430/cyclades-a-good-game

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/740990/ti3-as-a-multiplayer-...



We are in love with this game because it is the best multiplayer war/ameritrash/fighty game we have. Runewars was our previous winner, but it was frustrating because of the "lock down" tokens and the Puerto-Rico-card-activation system that limited the action. Eclipse picks up the banner because it has one of the coolest combat mechanics I've seen, rewards combat, and has a simple but meaningful economic side that really impacts combat (either how much you can do, how much you can build, or how good your ships can be).

Let's go through:

1. The person who avoids combat wins
They can. It is harder to win if you make sure they can't, though.
2. The whole game degenerates into bash-the-leader
Hard to tell who the leader is not just because of hidden tech VP tiles (which shouldn't be more than a few points of difference) but because of hidden potential. My high research, high build, low actions might turn into 3 monoliths for 9 points on the last turn. This is also how a person who avoids combat can win.
3. The whole game stalls for 20 minutes near the end while most players have a long discussion about the best sequence of moves to stop the other player(s) from winning (Mare Nostrum, TI3)
It could if you let it, and last game the two players definitely coordinated and planned their moves to take me, the clear winner, down, but it didn't take 20 minutes. Green had literally four ships and 3 actions to commit, and all of them were needed to move in/lock me down, move the others in, then attack an undefended planet. He failed anyways devil but while our last turns usually take longer than our first turns, nothing is guaranteed.
4. The game ends abruptly due to inadvertent kingmaking (Mare Nostrum, Cyclades). i.e. one (inexperienced) player wrecks the game for everyone else by making a bad move.
The game has a set time limit, and near every move can be recovered from (though this gets harder as the game progresses). One player might have a tough time giving somebody a win, but they can definitely make it harder for one specific player to win (although a player being too aggressive and playing poorly can possibly be counter-attacked effectively. The best defense in this game is a good offense).
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.
Yeah, probably.
6. Diplomatic negotiations take FOREVER.
Couldn't see how. The only negotiation is when you first meet in a 4+ player game really, and after that the rule is simple: do not touch or lose 3 VP
7. The game has a set number of turns so on the final turn everyone does silly attacks for VP maximisation (Serenissima).
By the end most of the good VP tiles are taken, and if you attack somebody just to waste their actions all you will do is waste yours, too, and propel somebody else to victory. However, if everyone's playing to win this doesn't happen. Although this doesn't mean you don't get very serious, determined attacks at the end. In my last game my opponent and I had a 3 turn war that ended with us almost completely switching positions the last turn. It wasn't a "silly attack" though because I was prepared to fight for one more round and he wasn't. Makes me wish the game had gone on longer.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
johnclark wrote:

1. The person who avoids combat wins

It's more an economic engine game than a wargame, so this is a possibility, but it would be very difficult to pull off. You certainly can't completely ignore defense in favor of generating points, anyway, so military will always be a factor.

Quote:
2. The whole game degenerates into bash-the-leader

The game does a pretty good job of keeping you in the dark about who exactly is winning, and by how much. It's also very difficult to coordinate everyone to jump one player, since almost by default the last conspirator has every reason to take the easy pickings from someone else instead.

Quote:
3. The whole game stalls for 20 minutes near the end while most players have a long discussion about the best sequence of moves to stop the other player(s) from winning (Mare Nostrum, TI3)

Nah, not really. For one thing, I think the game is tight enough that most people will be more concerned with maximizing their own score than hitting someone else. For another, as mentioned earlier, it's difficult to coordinate an attack without leaving yourself vulnerable.

Quote:
4. The game ends abruptly due to inadvertent kingmaking (Mare Nostrum, Cyclades). i.e. one (inexperienced) player wrecks the game for everyone else by making a bad move.

Ugh, Cyclades. :shudder: Terrible game. This one doesn't suffer from that exactly, but it is possible that an experienced player might be able to capitalize on a newbie's mistakes for an advantage. That's true of any game, though.


Quote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.

I hate this kind of player too, and it's pointless to play anything with them at all, regardless of the game.

Quote:
6. Diplomatic negotiations take FOREVER.

This is a pretty straighforward mechanic in this game.

Quote:
7. The game has a set number of turns so on the final turn everyone does silly attacks for VP maximisation (Serenissima).

I'm not sure what your complaint is here...does that make it seem unthematic to you? There are certainly reasons to attack on the last turn--to pin an opponent's ships to protect your own territory, to try to steal a hex or two for points, etc. You have to plan accordingly for the last turn, but I don't really see the problem with people attacking to maximize their score so I don't think I understand the question.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sofa Chair
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Really only number seven is in play and if said attacks are "stupid" then you deserve to lose and will if your ships are that bad. In my game even when I almost destroyed a player it wasn't the end for him at all and he almost got second place out of five. I got dead last because of two players focusing all of their efforts (military wise) at me but every fleet has a weakness and both were weak to missiles which I couldn't afford.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Clark
Australia
Canberra
ACT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
johnclark wrote:
7. The game has a set number of turns so on the final turn everyone does silly attacks for VP maximisation (Serenissima).

I'm not sure what your complaint is here...does that make it seem unthematic to you? There are certainly reasons to attack on the last turn--to pin an opponent's ships to protect your own territory, to try to steal a hex or two for points, etc. You have to plan accordingly for the last turn, but I don't really see the problem with people attacking to maximize their score so I don't think I understand the question.


Yes, the end-of-the-world attacks are totally logical within the game rules, but that kind of thing does not make much sense from a thematic perspective and leaves everyone feeling a bit unsatisfied. Serenissima is renown for its last round bloodbath. In Eclipse, I guess if the good VPs for attacking are gone by then, then the motivation to attack for VPs is much lower.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
johnclark wrote:

Yes, the end-of-the-world attacks are totally logical within the game rules, but that kind of thing does not make much sense from a thematic perspective and leaves everyone feeling a bit unsatisfied. Serenissima is renown for its last round bloodbath. In Eclipse, I guess if the good VPs for attacking are gone by then, then the motivation to attack for VPs is much lower.

It's just like any game with a fixed ending. You have to calculate what is going to give you the most points. Maybe it's building Monoliths, maybe it's getting some techs, maybe it's exploring, maybe it's just influencing a formerly abandoned sector, or maybe it's attacking. End resources don't mean anything, so you've got to milk out those last points. There is likely to be a couple 'silly' attacks but often players already have the best VP tiles so that doesn't usually come up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Touko Tahkokallio
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
johnclark wrote:
In Eclipse, I guess if the good VPs for attacking are gone by then, then the motivation to attack for VPs is much lower.

some other aspects that contribute not for attacking on the last round are: your reputation track might be full and have good tiles already, you might have a treaty with the opponent (being the traitor at the end costs you negative points) and of course you can have better options for your last actions. But I'm not saying 7 cannot happen, as it does sometimes, but it is not a no-brainer.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
mfaulk80 wrote:
End resources don't mean anything, so you've got to milk out those last points. There is likely to be a couple 'silly' attacks but often players already have the best VP tiles so that doesn't usually come up.


Quick note: end resources are the tie break so they do mean SOMETHING, just not very much.

Also, anyone who doesn't have their reputation track full will at least throw an interceptor at something just to get the 1 or 2 free points from a draw: that's not silly, just prudent. The real battles (if any) will be over one or two juicy hexes, such as 001.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Touko wrote:
johnclark wrote:
In Eclipse, I guess if the good VPs for attacking are gone by then, then the motivation to attack for VPs is much lower.

some other aspects that contribute not for attacking on the last round are: your reputation track might be full and have good tiles already, you might have a treaty with the opponent (being the traitor at the end costs you negative points) and of course you can have better options for your last actions. But I'm not saying 7 cannot happen, as it does sometimes, but it is not a no-brainer.


Question, Touko: If your rep track is full of good tiles, is there any reason you can't take another rep tile and simply toss it back in the bag? I don't recall anything in the rules prohibiting that. (I realize you have no incentive to attack aside from trying to pick up a high-value hex; I'm just wondering from your comment if you can't do that.)

By the way, I've played one 3P and most of one 2P (the game was effectively over, and we decided to call it). As soon as I get a 4-6P game done I plan to write a review.

You have been warned. Govern yourselves accordingly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Number 7 doesn't really exist, because after your turn, everyone else has another chance for a turn. So... while you're attacking, maybe they attack you somewhere else. If they can somehow attack and keep you out of their territory, then it's your own fault there, isn't it, or they played rather well and deserve to make that attack...

There's a set NUMBER of ROUNDS, but as long as you have an influence disk, you can keep reacting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Richardson

Pennsylvania
msg tools
mbmb
johnclark wrote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.


Why is that stupid? I do that in certain situations, such as when another player is targeting me for no justifiable reason (I am not winning.) If someone isn't trying to win, but just trying to be a !@%$, then I will be a !@%$ right back at them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ParticleMan wrote:
johnclark wrote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.


Why is that stupid? I do that in certain situations, such as when another player is targeting me for no justifiable reason (I am not winning.) If someone isn't trying to win, but just trying to be a !@%$, then I will be a !@%$ right back at them.


Whether or not you are winning is not the only reason to attack you. If attacking you makes for the best possible gain, that makes sense. If you retaliate and continue to retaliate just to "teach them a lesson," you're the one who isn't playing to win.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lonnie H
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ParticleMan wrote:
johnclark wrote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.


Why is that stupid? I do that in certain situations, such as when another player is targeting me for no justifiable reason (I am not winning.) If someone isn't trying to win, but just trying to be a !@%$, then I will be a !@%$ right back at them.


Jim, I think he was referring to the first person to go "off track" and start to play for their personal agenda and not game goals. So in your example, you are reacting to the "stupid" person/situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timo Hohkala
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
Touko wrote:
johnclark wrote:
In Eclipse, I guess if the good VPs for attacking are gone by then, then the motivation to attack for VPs is much lower.

some other aspects that contribute not for attacking on the last round are: your reputation track might be full and have good tiles already, you might have a treaty with the opponent (being the traitor at the end costs you negative points) and of course you can have better options for your last actions. But I'm not saying 7 cannot happen, as it does sometimes, but it is not a no-brainer.


Question, Touko: If your rep track is full of good tiles, is there any reason you can't take another rep tile and simply toss it back in the bag? I don't recall anything in the rules prohibiting that. (I realize you have no incentive to attack aside from trying to pick up a high-value hex; I'm just wondering from your comment if you can't do that.)

By the way, I've played one 3P and most of one 2P (the game was effectively over, and we decided to call it). As soon as I get a 4-6P game done I plan to write a review.

You have been warned. Govern yourselves accordingly.


Yes you can toss back the chip you just pulled out of the bag. It would be silly to force someone throw back their 3s and 4s just by attacking them late in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Clark
Australia
Canberra
ACT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ParticleMan wrote:
johnclark wrote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.


Why is that stupid? I do that in certain situations, such as when another player is targeting me for no justifiable reason (I am not winning.) If someone isn't trying to win, but just trying to be a !@%$, then I will be a !@%$ right back at them.


This is fast going off topic, but I was the OP so I guess that's ok :-)

The key bit is "for no justifiable reason". What if another player attacks you on the mistaken belief that it will help his chances? That is, you can see that its an unjustifiable attack but the other player cannot. You explain it to him, but another player in the game manages to (wrongly) convince him that the attack is justified. Does that constitute an "unjustifiable" attack? Are you then justified in saying, "if you attack me I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you"??? I think not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Richardson

Pennsylvania
msg tools
mbmb
johnclark wrote:
What if another player attacks you on the mistaken belief that it will help his chances?


Every situation is different; the specific situation I have in mind occurred during a game of Carcassonne with a rather immature teen "couple" who had a silent alliance on one side of the board, one of them abandoning any chance of winning themselves and just helping their "partner" by screwing people over. I was behind in the game but was still the target of this person's assaults. That's punishable behavior for a number of reasons which would seem apparent.

I then had the unenviable job of not only abandoning winning myself, focusing my efforts to hamper their unfair alliance, but also having to target the player on their "team" who had the better chance of winning, rather than specifically punishing the more unsavory "hit man" who was causing the most problems to begin with.

I declined to game with them again. shake

Note I don't have that much of a problem with alliances per se, but the alliance should be with the purpose of each player having a better chance at winning, not one player giving up and acting as someone else's personal thug. The gloves are off at that point, and I make no apologies for it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko Kaskela
Finland
flag msg tools
mb
I'd say that Eclipse is as little prone to these war game issues than any game can be. Mind you, there are some contradictions with the issues listed in the opening post:
- Possibility to bash the leader and long negotiations how to gang up on someone preventing them from winning sort of go together. Also bash the leader can be good too, for example as a counter to the experienced guy benefiting from newbie mistakes (or runaway leader issue)
- Why do you think that hidden victory scores are "gamey" and "a lazy way to prevent leader bashing"? Aren't they a good way to prevent leader bashing (plus also reduce AP and point counting to cause those long negotiations you were also worried)?

About the opponent with vengeance - two points to add:
- It might be a good thing to have a vengeful image for the next games... as long as you are not overdoing it so you won't get invited
- Claiming vengeance might make the oppressor rethink, since knowing that retaliation is coming might make continuing the attack to not be the best option. Anyway always important to give the other guy some interest to keep playing besides revenge if he is capable of being the king maker.

Agreed that it is infuriating to be attacked by someone when it clearly does not help them to win the game. Such players can easily ruin war games, likely Eclipse as much as some other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kaj Sotala
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmb
johnclark wrote:
2. The whole game degenerates into bash-the-leader


I wouldn't go as far as to say that the whole game degenerates to it, but there has certainly been a strong bash-the-leader dynamic around in some of the games I've played. In particular, winning as the Descendents or Planta seems somewhat hard, since they're such strong races that everyone will be out to get them from the beginning.

On the other hand, there have also been games where the leader was strong enough that everyone else was hesitant to attack them. This is compounded by the fact that the rules effectively prevent most kinds of military alliances. (Moving ships into the same hex as another player will automatically break any diplomatic relationships you have with them, and two or more players can't move into an enemy hex on the same turn with the intention of fighting the enemy together - the rules will force them to fight each other first.)

Quote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.


Off-topic, but since we are already discussing this - IMO, this isn't stupidity, but rather metagaming. It trades a short-term gain (victory in one game) to a long-term gain (making others more reluctant to attack you in future games), thus possibly netting more victories in the long run.

AFAIK, in international politics it's also acknowledged that a nation should sometimes retaliate "irrationally" strongly to a minor provocation, using far more resources for the retaliation than the provocation actually cost them. If you always only retaliate when the cost of retaliation is lower than the cost of enduring the provocation, then you're assuring that people will keep making minor provocations, safe in the knowledge that you won't do anything about it. Likewise here - it can be quite intelligent to cultivate a reputation as the sort of a gamer who will retaliate disproportionately to any attacks, thus reducing the amount of attacks that you suffer.

Of course, one may be of the opinion that people shouldn't metagame, and that's an entirely justifiable opinion. If you don't like it, then by all means don't invite metagaming players to your group. But not liking their style of gameplay doesn't mean that they should be called stupid.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
johnclark wrote:
ParticleMan wrote:
johnclark wrote:
5. The game is prone to stupid players who say "if you attack me then I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you" - if I could ban any player from my table (including those with really bad hygiene) it would be those players.


Why is that stupid? I do that in certain situations, such as when another player is targeting me for no justifiable reason (I am not winning.) If someone isn't trying to win, but just trying to be a !@%$, then I will be a !@%$ right back at them.


This is fast going off topic, but I was the OP so I guess that's ok :-)

The key bit is "for no justifiable reason". What if another player attacks you on the mistaken belief that it will help his chances? That is, you can see that its an unjustifiable attack but the other player cannot. You explain it to him, but another player in the game manages to (wrongly) convince him that the attack is justified. Does that constitute an "unjustifiable" attack? Are you then justified in saying, "if you attack me I will give up trying to win and make it my only goal to destroy you"??? I think not.


There are entire threads dedicated to this topic, but it basically boils down to one side saying "you should always try to do what's best for you in the game, and playing a vendetta against another person just ruins the game experience for everyone" and the other saying "Bro, if you ever attack me I'm, like, totally going to hit you back so you don't, like, attack me ever again in a game because you know I'll go after you all crazy style. FIST BUMP!"

In your example, the unjustifiable attack is probably a mistake that you can take advantage of. If someone's mistaken unjustifiable attack cost you the game, you lost and they learned a strategy lesson. No big deal. It's the people who will deliberately say things like "You took out my dreadnought so I'm doing nothing but coming after you the rest of the game" who are the real assholes that no one wants to play with.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Xuenay wrote:


Of course, one may be of the opinion that people shouldn't metagame, and that's an entirely justifiable opinion. If you don't like it, then by all means don't invite metagaming players to your group. But not liking their style of gameplay doesn't mean that they should be called stupid.


Their style of gameplay is stupid. Whether or not they are personally stupid is probably related, but not important.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derry Salewski
United States
Augusta
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
I'm only happy when it rains...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I didn't realize styles of game play could have an intelligence level!

What do you say if it's in the same game? Player A makes a move that costs three resources, and steals two resources from player B. Player B then makes the 'illogical' move that costs five resources to take those two resources back. Now player C and D (and maybe A?) do not do the same thing to player B that game. Player A might be whining that Player B and A are both disadvantaged from the exchange now, but if B thought C and D would try to take similar advantage of him, and thought this move would prevent it, A might just be complaining. And might be the one with a bad strategy.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
scifiantihero wrote:
I didn't realize styles of game play could have an intelligence level!

What do you say if it's in the same game? Player A makes a move that costs three resources, and steals two resources from player B. Player B then makes the 'illogical' move that costs five resources to take those two resources back. Now player C and D (and maybe A?) do not do the same thing to player B that game. Player A might be whining that Player B and A are both disadvantaged from the exchange now, but if B thought C and D would try to take similar advantage of him, and thought this move would prevent it, A might just be complaining. And might be the one with a bad strategy.



It's entirely possible to make convoluted hypotheticals to prove either point, and it's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, but it's more a "know it when you see it" kind of thing. Basically in my mind if you're attacking someone for a strategic reason that goes beyond the board on the table, you're not really playing the game anymore. In your example Player C and D don't have to go after B, he's already done something inefficient and put both himself and Player A behind in the game. If Player B left himself open for the initial attack, where does he get off retaliating to teach them a lesson? This isn't real life, it's a game, and in the game he'd have been wiser to not leave the opening in the first place. In a game with attacks you can't expect that you'll never be attacked, right? So if you respond to those attacks like they're personal, you're not playing the game at all.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 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.