| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jimzik
Joined: 18 Nov 05
Posts: 12
Location: Avon Lake, Ohio
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | Whilst suggestions toward perceived improvements of the site might be welcomed, perhaps an emotive debate like this concerning an abstract and periferal scoring system which might apply to any games is best continued elsewhere?
Well, isn't this a self-righteous statement!
Golux and I were having a discussion and there was no name calling except me pointing out what he called himself and getting a good chuckle. I don't have to agree with Golux but he has every right to speak his mind and so do I. The one thing EVERYONE here agreed on, Lex, is that this is a great site and everyone enjoys it. We don't need a pompous bugger telling us what and where we can discuss our opinions. I looked but I couldn't find any other way to communicate an idea here besides this forum so if you don't like the discussion then stay out of it, it didn't involve you.
OK, Golux, where were we? Hey, good luck in our game, according to you were both tied for LOSER -  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hubajube
Joined: 11 May 04
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jimzik wrote: | | How about Kenny for the 12th time because he's a dick". |
Hey! I'm not that bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think that all players always trying to badger first place (or, worse, the player they perceive is in first place) regardless of their own position is more destructive. I think that by 80% of the way through a game, players are cognizant of their relative positions and begin playing to hold on to their position (2nd trying to make sure 3rd doesn't pass him) as well as usurp the position in front of them (2nd place trying to catch up to first). To expect the player in a distant 5th place to play to beat the leader instead of 4th on the last couple turns is both unrealistic and encourages players to stay in a careful 2nd or 3rd place, ruining the excitement, fun, and flow of most games. |
Here's where we differ: I don't think you play to beat any particular player -- you play to maximize your score and to try to get as close to winning as possible. You should always pick the course of action that you think is going to maximize your overall score. I think in most cases, that choice will be the one that maximizes your point swing with respect to the leader rather than some other trailing player, but in any event, you can end the game knowing that you aimed for the best finish you could get.
And I think that assigning some value to 2nd, 3rd or other trailing places would do more to encourage people to "stay in a careful 2nd or 3rd place." (I realize that's not what you are suggesting in your most recent post, where you suggest just indicating the number/percentage of 2nd, 3rd, etc. place finishes; but others have suggested giving relative values to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on, which very well could encourage people to play more carefully to preserve an aggregate point score rather than trying to win.)
And Jimzik, I appreciate your comments -- except the part where you suggested my friends and I need "professional help" (was that you?), which was kind of nasty -- and I agree, the purpose of the site is to play games and have fun, a purpose it fulfills with flying colors. And if I can figure out strategies that increase my percentage of wins, so much the better. (And yes, I agree, we are both tied for not-first.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LVBrian
Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Golux13 wrote: | | Here's where we differ: I don't think you play to beat any particular player -- you play to maximize your score and to try to get as close to winning as possible. |
You're right, then, we do differ substantially on the first part of your statement. I don't care about maximizing my score. I only care about maximizing my position among other players. When I win a game of Puerto Rico with 40 points it is just as satisfying as winning with 60. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LVBrian wrote: | | Golux13 wrote: | | Here's where we differ: I don't think you play to beat any particular player -- you play to maximize your score and to try to get as close to winning as possible. |
You're right, then, we do differ substantially on the first part of your statement. I don't care about maximizing my score. I only care about maximizing my position among other players. When I win a game of Puerto Rico with 40 points it is just as satisfying as winning with 60. |
I think I wasn't clear, possibly because I edited and re-edited and may have lost something. The ultimate goal of the game is to win, so on each turn -- especially in the endgame -- your goal for each turn or each action should be to maximize your score, which will get you as close to winning as possible.
Let's try a semi-concrete example: Suppose you are playing a game and as the final turn approaches, you are in 5th place out of 5. You have two options for a final move: Move #1 will get you to 40 points, and the swing against the player currently in 4th place will be such that you are guaranteed to beat him. Move #2 will get you to 50 points and have a greater swing against the leader, but the swing against the 4th place guy is less and will leave him an opening to make a move that might beat you. Which move do you choose? My answer, obviously, is Move #2 -- beating the 4th place player is not as important to me as getting as close to the leader as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LVAlex
Joined: 01 Nov 05
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maximizing score does not necessarily put you closer to winning. A move that gains me two points and everyone else zero is better in terms of winning than one that garners me five and everyone else 4.
Playing for placings does not encourage king-making. King-making requires intention to meddle with placings or gross perversion of the goals of a game. Because really, any action in a game will benefit one opponent over another and to label these all king-making is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LVBrian
Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Golux13 wrote: | | Let's try a semi-concrete example: Suppose you are playing a game and as the final turn approaches, you are in 5th place out of 5. You have two options for a final move: Move #1 will get you to 40 points, and the swing against the player currently in 4th place will be such that you are guaranteed to beat him. Move #2 will get you to 50 points and have a greater swing against the leader, but the swing against the 4th place guy is less and will leave him an opening to make a move that might beat you. Which move do you choose? My answer, obviously, is Move #2 -- beating the 4th place player is not as important to me as getting as close to the leader as possible. |
Player A 90 points
Player B 85 points
Player C 85 points
Player D 85 points
You . . . . 70 points
You act last at the VERY end of the game and have a chance to score 19 points and boost player A by 10 points.
Player A 100 points
You . . . . 89 points
Player B 85 points
Player C 85 points
Player D 85 points
Your other option is to score 14 points and boost nobody.
Player A 90 points
Player B 85 points
Player C 85 points
Player D 85 points
You . . . . 84 points
You are telling me that in that last action you will take 5th instead of 2nd because it leaves you closer relative to the leader's score? (93% vs. 89%) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LVBrian wrote: |
Player A 90 points
Player B 85 points
Player C 85 points
Player D 85 points
You . . . . 70 points
You act last at the VERY end of the game and have a chance to score 19 points and boost player A by 10 points.
Player A 100 points
You . . . . 89 points
Player B 85 points
Player C 85 points
Player D 85 points
Your other option is to score 14 points and boost nobody.
Player A 90 points
Player B 85 points
Player C 85 points
Player D 85 points
You . . . . 84 points
You are telling me that in that last action you will take 5th instead of 2nd because it leaves you closer relative to the leader's score? (93% vs. 89%) |
In that case, it makes absolutely no difference what I do. In my group, I would acknowledge that Player A has won the game no matter what, and then I would play out for my maximum score. I wouldn't make much of having gone from last to second under those circumstances.
Now let's make your example more like my question. Suppose after my move, one or more other players get to move, or there is some other game condition that could boost me. Depending on the circumstances and the possible point implications, it might be more advantageous to be 6 points behind the leader than to open the gap wider. For instance, if the maximum point boost I could expect is 10, why would I want to be 11 points back?
Alex, you're right. The point of any move should be to maximize your score relative to the other players, not necessarily in absolute numbers. A move that gets you 2 points and everyone else zero is definitely better than one that gets you 5 and everyone else 4... but I don't think it's better than one that gets you 5, the leader 2 and everyone else 4.
Of course these are oversimplifications. In most games, you are operating from incomplete knowledge, and even where you have complete knowledge, there is often so much to keep track of that it's easy to make errors or to misread the situation, particularly when there are multiple possible actions, each of which will affect scoring differently.
For some reason, I don't think we're very far apart in how we approach games. Where there seems to be some disconnect is on the relative value of placing second, third, fourth, etc. In my view, the distinction is minimally relevant. When I don't win a game, I try to figure out why not, and I suppose I might more readily identify mistakes when I finish last. But other than thinking to myself "Maybe I'm finally getting the hang of this game," I don't consider 2nd place to be a significantly better achievement than any lower place. (Also, when I think I'm finally getting the hang of a game, I usually end up placing last the next time I play, giving thelie to that particular assumption of progress.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LVBrian
Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... wouldn't make much of coming in second... disappointment implied in always trying to figure out exactly why you didn't win when you come in second...
Yeah, Golux13, I have read your post several times and it still makes no sense to me and my play sensibilities. Seems so lamentable to treat everything other than first place as an absolute loss.
I can see why the conversation suddenly stopped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jimzik
Joined: 18 Nov 05
Posts: 12
Location: Avon Lake, Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LVBrian wrote: | ... wouldn't make much of coming in second... disappointment implied in always trying to figure out exactly why you didn't win when you come in second...
Yeah, Golux13, I have read your post several times and it still makes no sense to me and my play sensibilities. Seems so lamentable to treat everything other than first place as an absolute loss.
I can see why the conversation suddenly stopped. |
Another reason I like your reasoning is that we all invest a good deal of time playing in a game here and wouldn't you like to get SOMETHING for the effort? In most games a month is devoted to playing it here with some games going longer due to slow play and according to the win or bust theory all the losers just wasted their time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Montu
Joined: 14 Nov 05
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the reasons I like Reiner Knizia's games so much is that I think he and I have the same idea of what makes playing games worthwhile. He has a famous quote, "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning," which I think quite eloquently encapsulates my own views.
Playing games is about making meaningful the game experience. Taking the stance that only the winner's score matters is tantamount to saying that the game is only meaningful for the winner. I disagree. The game can be meaningful for any number of reasons to all players involved. In fact, my best game of El Grande ever was one in which I finished second after being in last place by a huge margin early. I tried to win but came up a few points short: still, I was very pleased with my finish since I'd expected to finish last for 2/3 of the game. I learned more about El Grande from that "loss" than from all the times I've won El Grande. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: Amun-Re -- Rollback of game possible? |
|
|
| LVBrian wrote: | | ... wouldn't make much of coming in second... disappointment implied in always trying to figure out exactly why you didn't win when you come in second... |
Of course there's disappointment when I don't win. You don't feel that? And yes, I do try to figure out why I didn't win, whether I made obvious mistakes or was simply outplayed, etc. We often conduct post mortems on games. It's not an obsession, more like an after-action report. You don't do that?
| LVBrian wrote: | | Yeah, Golux13, I have read your post several times and it still makes no sense to me and my play sensibilities. Seems so lamentable to treat everything other than first place as an absolute loss. |
As I think I suggested somewhere, if I take second it may represent some progress in my understanding of the game, and to the extent that's the case, then second is better than third, fourth, last, etc. And I'd rather take second than third and I'd rather not place dead last. But I don't necessarily consider a second place (or third or last, or first for that matter) finish in any single game to be a reliable measure of my skill at the game relative to everyone else, and if I were consistently placing second but not winning, I would begin to wonder what I was doing wrong or not getting about the game.
| LVBrian wrote: | | I can see why the conversation suddenly stopped. |
I attribute that, in my case at least, to fatigue and a sense of futility after having tried and tried to explain myself and being repeatedly misread or misinterpreted.
Montu, I've never said that only the winner's score is "meaningful." I've never talked about the "meaning" of a game, other than to say that my reason for playing games is to have fun and be challenged (the latter, in my view, being a subset of the former). In a situation such as you describe, I would definitely feel good about placing second when it looked like I was out of the game -- but at no point during that game would I have been playing to "take second," and it sounds as though you were in fact actively trying to (wait for it) win the game. Tell me, even though you were justifiably proud of your strong finish, weren't you just a wee bit sorry that you couldn't find a way to squeeze out those last few points and win the game? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LVBrian
Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: Re: Amun-Re -- Rollback of game possible? |
|
|
| Golux13 wrote: | | Of course there's disappointment when I don't win. You don't feel that? And yes, I do try to figure out why I didn't win, whether I made obvious mistakes or was simply outplayed, etc. We often conduct post mortems on games. It's not an obsession, more like an after-action report. You don't do that? |
Of course we all do that after some games, Golux13. I just don't traditionally see second place doing much more than ruminating over a couple moves that, in hindsight, could have been better. Certainly not feeling the kind of regret that he is a loser that you are implying over and over in all of these posts. If second place out of five starts crying over what-could-have-been in our group, I would hand him a towel.
| Golux13 wrote: | | Montu... Tell me, even though you were justifiably proud of your strong finish, weren't you just a wee bit sorry that you couldn't find a way to squeeze out those last few points and win the game? |
I think I can answer for montu. (All apologies, montu, if I am wrong.)
"No."
But maybe in a game of Amun-Re here he would be a wee bit sorry because his 2nd place is only as good as 5th place (in what the other players see and perceive) and it is rather anticlimactic. Which was my point, really, in starting this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kanga
Joined: 27 Oct 05
Posts: 1503
Location: Moe, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While at least in this thread Golux's views are in the minority, I actually agree with nearly everything he's said. I also dont view 2nd as any better than last, except in that it might mean I've played better. If I can't win, I will always play to get as close to the leader as I can. I couldn't care less if that is 2nd or 5th. I'll still enjoy the game when I dont win, but my aim is to win.
To show an example of what happens when 2nd placings are rewarded, I have played Hearts on zone.com for many years. Zone.com rating system awards points something along the lines of 4,3,2,1 for 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th. Some players, when behind, will clearly decide not to play to win and just try to get the points for second. This really devalues the playing experience in the game, and is actually really unpopular amongst other players, but the scoring system rewards them. In contrast, in tournament play on the same site, only the winner advances to the next level. This leads to much more competitive, aggressive play and generally more enjoyable games.
If 2nd places are to be recognised, and given "points" in some way, then it must be a lot less than the winner. I doubt we'll get a scoring sytem implemented anyway, but if we did, my preference would be for something like 5 points for the winner and 2 points for 2nd in a 5 player game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LVBrian
Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think what you are describing will happen here, Kanga. After all, if it did, people would be starting up TONS of 3-player only Amun-Re games to take advantage of the mathematical ease of taking a first.
Further, I don't think many players here would consciously allow the consolation prize of second or third or fourth to impact their play that much. It would only serve to assist those who regard their performance records as a source of fun to have a reason to be excited going back to a game in which they are realistically fighting for third or fourth position.
If all the games here were 4 player max like hearts I would probably not take up the gauntlet on this topic. And if the games had problematic ending mechanics like hearts, then I would probably acquiesce the point.
I guess more than anything I am surprised by the number of emphatic voices who see 2nd place among 5 as a sort of missed opportunity and source of concern for one's game approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Your Games
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
