Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
145 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 

Archipelago» Forums » General

Subject: The great Archipelago losing question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dr. snowMan
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You are deep into a game of Archipelago. Fate has not been kind to you, you are well behind your opponents in all possible measures. Rebellion looms, and the decision to avert rebellion has fallen to you. You must pay a high cost to continue the game, but will certainly lose if you do. The bright side is: you know there is no separatist (assume you took him out of the game), so the group will have a winning game. Just, you will finish last.

So... do you pay the price and finish last in a winning game? Or force the loss for all?

Poll
Your move?
Pay the price, and finish a certain last in a winning game.
Don't pay: rebellion! Everyone loses equally.
      258 answers
Poll created by DsnowMan


EDIT: Is you answer any different if you know you can't win, but will instead finish 2nd (out of 4+ players)?

Poll
Your move?
Pay the price and finish 2nd in a winning game
Don't pay: rebellion! Everyone loses equally
      236 answers
Poll created by DsnowMan
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Harrison
United States
Fisher
Illinois
flag msg tools
So long ...
badge
... and thanks for all the fish.
Avatar
mb
What will be the spread between first and second place?

If I have a reasonable hope of getting first place, I'll continue. But if it's obvious that my second place will be a decided second, I may forgo payment and sink the first-place player.

I voted the Option 2 in Poll 2, because if I, by your terms, know I'm getting second place, then it must be second place by some substantial margin.

If there's a compelling hope of pulling out first, I'll take it; otherwise, it might depend: here's where metagame considerations come in. Because I might like the little empire I've built, and hate to sink it. Not everybody's in everything for the money.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Bradshaw
United Kingdom
Newcastle Upon Tyne
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Like a good many polls there is no leeway for a nuanced answer - you're presented with one choice yes or no.

My answer is - it depends.

It depends on who I'm playing with, how much I've enjoyed (or otherwise) the game so far, how I'm feeling at the time - and the situation around me (for example - is another game about to start elsewhere in the room?! Or perhaps it's late and I'd like to get off home.

If I'm playing with people I know, who I've not seen win this before, I'll be happy to save the game. If I'm playing with a bunch of people that I've just taught the game to, I'd almost certainly save the game. If I'm playing with a bunch of people who have somehow irritated me or I feel have behaved obnoxiously or whatever, I'd be happy for us all to lose.

So as I say it depends. I cannot give a definitive answer because I'm sure I would react differently in different situations.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brent Wilson
United States
Montgomery
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The results of the first poll show exactly why its so important that you DON'T know what everyone else's secret objective NOR have any guarantee that there isn't a separatist.

Both the hidden objectives and the possibility of the separatist are critical.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Speedyox wrote:
The results of the first poll show exactly why its so important that you DON'T know what everyone else's secret objective NOR have any guarantee that there isn't a separatist.

Both the hidden objectives and the possibility of the separatist are critical.

It also shows why players in the (perceived) lead better work on stifling the rebellion instead of leaving it to the apparent losing players. It works as a catch up mechanism....
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The second question assumes a lot--that you can know you're in second, not first and not third. In practice that level of clarity rarely happens given secret goals. Especially if one or two players are significantly behind and are ignoring their goals just keep a basic infrastructure in tact. So I voted yes on the second question because I might win.

Also, you don't say how close the game is to ending, and indeed that's ok since you don't know for sure, unless you're about to trigger your own end-game condition. But my vote could change based on my perception of remaining game left. If there are likely more crises to deal with, paying the price now to keep it going can motivate others to pay instead of me next time, which might be beneficial to me in the long-run anyway.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Beurivé
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I will pay the price in both cases. I certainly don't want to be executed. And finishing last is still winning the game!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Beurivé
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I will also make it mandatory to play with the Benefactor card which will give me points for my contributions. Even if I finish last, I will be proud to have a few (might even be a lot! of) coins there on my color.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bohm
United States
Appleton
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
The rebellion mechanic is not anything new in the gaming world. The idea that, if everyone does something bad, the game will gobble them up.

The reason it's a cool mechanic is that a winning player or people who feel they are near the lead have incentive to try and prevent this, since they could possibly win. Ultimately, I like it when the bad stuff gives you some sort of bonus, which makes it a catch up mechanic - people in back will hit the red button hoping to move up with the players up front play more conservatively. It needs to be carefully balanced but when it does, it's pretty cool.

Now, with secret points, I think it works well also since you don't know if you are winning or not, so I would think everyone would want to be careful unless A. you have the "I win" condition for Rebellion or B. you're just having a horrible game and know you're losing.

However, if I know I have no possibility to win - second to last - if somehow I have magical powers of knowing all the scores, I'd have a problem paying to ensure someone else wins. I'd cause rebellion and I don't think it's that much of a jerk move - in my mind it would be the fault of either the winner (who knows, maybe he got into the lead by ignoring the warning signs - he could have been more careful and maybe still have won not allowing anyone to push the final red button) or the game (if the game is designed off balanced where someone can be winning without having contributed "bad" stuff but is snuffed solely by the envious other players).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pay the price and pay the price!

If you are not paying the price, you are not playing the game arrrh

The talk of a losing player tanking the game as a catch-up mechanism seems silly to me.

Say I play with Hank who is a very Angry Player - he turns over the table spilling all components on the floor when he is in a losing position. Now playing with players like Hank is an excellent "catch-up mechanism" because I do not wan't to spend my evening looking for gamepieces on the floor. shake

/David
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wojtyla wrote:
Pay the price and pay the price!

If you are not paying the price, you are not playing the game arrrh

The talk of a loosing player tanking the game as a catch-up mechanism seems silly to me.

Say I play with Hank who is a very Angry Player - he turns over the table spilling all components on the floor when he is in a loosing position. Now playing with players like Hank is an excellent "catch-up mechanism" because I do not wan't to spend my evening looking for gamepieces on the floor. shake

/David

I'd arge that by paying the price, you aren't playing the game. Archipelago is as much about social interaction as anything else. As the losing player, you need to find leverage, and that's exactly what this part of the game allows. This isn't a typical euro.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bohm
United States
Appleton
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
Wojtyla wrote:
Pay the price and pay the price!

If you are not paying the price, you are not playing the game arrrh

The talk of a loosing player tanking the game as a catch-up mechanism seems silly to me.

Say I play with Hank who is a very Angry Player - he turns over the table spilling all components on the floor when he is in a loosing position. Now playing with players like Hank is an excellent "catch-up mechanism" because I do not wan't to spend my evening looking for gamepieces on the floor. shake

/David


Your logic, it is undeniable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Never Knows Best wrote:
Wojtyla wrote:
Pay the price and pay the price!

If you are not paying the price, you are not playing the game arrrh

The talk of a loosing player tanking the game as a catch-up mechanism seems silly to me.

Say I play with Hank who is a very Angry Player - he turns over the table spilling all components on the floor when he is in a loosing position. Now playing with players like Hank is an excellent "catch-up mechanism" because I do not wan't to spend my evening looking for gamepieces on the floor. shake

/David


Your logic, it is undeniable.


Glad I turned you around

Don't get me wrong; I'm perfectly fine with players playing anyway they want, but they are essentially replacing the games three outcomes for the players (Grand Winner/Winner/Loser) with two (Winner/Loser) thus playing a variant.

The answer in both the above cases is crystal clear if you are playing by the rules.

/David
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfaulk80 wrote:
I'd arge that by paying the price, you aren't playing the game.


Okay that is going to be hard, looking foward to it

mfaulk80 wrote:
Archipelago is as much about social interaction as anything else. As the losing player, you need to find leverage, and that's exactly what this part of the game allows. This isn't a typical euro.


I agree with everything you say here! In most circumstances the losing players can find a lot of leverage. A losing playe might tend to play a game more influenced by brinkmanship than a leading player in order to catch up. This depends on a lot of things: Such as f.ex.: Who is the rebel, and who tink who is the rebel if there is a rebel at all (okay this does not make sense hope you get it: It's ambiguous). Or how do a player evaluate the three different outcomes and how does this influence his/hers risk behavour. And many other things I'm sure.

BUT A PLAYER NEVER TANKS THE GAME ON PURPOSE - IF HE DOES HE IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!

I do however suspect that circumstances like the ones the questions presented are very rare. But players who have played more games than I (by the rules that is devil) might say otherwise.

/David
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
By the way, i find it amushing that some people most likely answered don't pay to the first question and pay on the second. What they have done is actually ignored the middle winning condition (winning but not grand winner) of the rules and invented their own (finishing second place) - good stuff

edit: I see now, by the comments, that some arrive at this by ignoring the assumptions clearly stated by the polster. This makes some sense - but seems a little silly given that they are so clearly spelled out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
Germany
Bad Vilbel
Hessen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wojtyla wrote:
BUT A PLAYER NEVER TANKS THE GAME ON PURPOSE - IF HE DOES HE IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!


I am pretty sure our assumed player is playing by the rules. The seperatist is doing this on purpose. Is it allowed if you are not the seperatist? I think it is a valid strategy in this kind of games (Republic of Rome anyone?)
In the determining the winner section of the rulebook it just states the obvious: If the game ends by a game end condition, everyone beats the game. (I do not have the English rules at hand, and am too lazy to figure out what is wrong with my PC or the file)
I guess you could read it the way you do and start telling people that there are two kind of winners, the "Winners" and the "Grand-Winner". I am not so sure that the first term is something that is filled with more sense than "you beat the game". If you understand it that way, feel free to play along the lines of it.

Btw, just because something is goverend by rules does not make it sensible or mandatory. There are plenty of rules out there which do not make any sense at all. You get my rules-lawyer camel of approval though goldencamel
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Apelord wrote:
Wojtyla wrote:
BUT A PLAYER NEVER TANKS THE GAME ON PURPOSE - IF HE DOES HE IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!


I am pretty sure our assumed player is playing by the rules. The seperatist is doing this on purpose. Is it allowed if you are not the seperatist? I think it is a valid strategy in this kind of games (Republic of Rome anyone?)


Okay should have read: A (NON-REBEL PLAYER) NEVER TANKS THE GAME ON PURPOSE - IF HE DOES HE IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!
It is clearly spelled out in the assumptions to the question, that the rebel is not in the game at all, so it's still pretty clear what should be done if playing by the rules. I have never dared tackling the rulebook of RoR so I can't comment on that.

Apelord wrote:
In the determining the winner section of the rulebook it just states the obvious: If the game ends by a game end condition, everyone beats the game. (I do not have the English rules at hand, and am too lazy to figure out what is wrong with my PC or the file)
I guess you could read it the way you do and start telling people that there are two kind of winners, the "Winners" and the "Grand-Winner". I am not so sure that the first term is something that is filled with more sense than "you beat the game". If you understand it that way, feel free to play along the lines of it.)


Not sure what you are geting at here. What ever the phrasing, it is clear that if the assumptions are A

why do my posts keep getting eaten?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wojtyla wrote:
Okay should have read: A (NON-REBEL PLAYER) NEVER TANKS THE GAME ON PURPOSE - IF HE DOES HE IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!

No matter how many times or ways you say this, it just isn't true. It's not against the rules to lose intentionally. It happens in all sorts of games that players can force the end-game, even though they don't win as a result.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bohm
United States
Appleton
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
I know that the rules state:

"If the game ends because an end-of-game condition is reached, all players have won the game. Players then count the victory points earned to determine the grand winner."

but honestly, if you win but another player is the "Grand Winner," did you really win?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
curtc wrote:
It's not against the rules to lose intentionally.


If you really believe this, it's going to be some strange games you are palying.

The rules does not say explicitly that it's against the rules - but it does say explicitly what the objectives of the game are; namely the victory conditions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Never Knows Best wrote:
I know that the rules state:

"If the game ends because an end-of-game condition is reached, all players have won the game. Players then count the victory points earned to determine the grand winner."

but honestly, if you win but another player is the "Grand Winner," did you really win?


I would defenitly rather be the grand winner . But if A>B>C and the choice is between B and C i should choose B, regardless of someone else getting A or not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
Germany
Bad Vilbel
Hessen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is more like A>C>B
You would like to win, if that is not possible, go for a draw.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Clausen
Denmark
København Ø
Perplexed
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Apelord wrote:
It is more like A>C>B
You would like to win, if that is not possible, go for a draw.


You mean A>B=C. It is a Perfectly playable variant of the original victory conditions from Archipalago.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
Germany
Bad Vilbel
Hessen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, A>C>B;
C=/=B: While in C you all lose equally = draw, in B you lose versus A.
I really do not see the problem here, B is a necessary condition to achieve A. If you had the stated perfect information situation it is quite clear that the draw is a better result.

Edit: and loose =/= lose ( i will never get that one right)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bohm
United States
Appleton
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar

I play games competitively and I try to play them with the idea of improving my relative position.

Still, if I can't improve my position, my options are:

-I can take action A. helping a player to win over me.

-I can take action B. where that same player now finishes in the same position I do.

I don't like the group think that this is wrong because it encourages a type of play that is distasteful. Namely in games with some sort of Armageddon condition - let's say like creating Pollution.

IF

Players must do everything in their power to prevent the game from ending, the smart play is to take advantage of the more-efficient/higher pollution producing actions early and often to try and get in the lead.

If you get in the lead, now the other players no longer have the option of using the method I used to get points and must make the most of the lesser efficient/clean mechanics to get points but I can use those same mechanics to maintain my lead.

I can't see why that's a good idea for a game.

Instead, if I exploit the game too much and get it too close to the Armageddon ending, I must accept the fact that a player doing the worst may decide to tip the balance, causing me to lose.

It might be a preference thing and we can certainly agree to disagree but I like this concept much better. If you think you might win, you should be trying to secure you're win by making sure you are doing everything possible to keep Armageddon from happening.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 
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.