Team-making

[ReblScum]

I just finished a game in which the players were ranked 550, 380, and 335.

Pretty early in the game, the lower ranked player seemed to be playing aggressively towards me... [committing a lot of meeples to steal points from me, when sharing seemed (to me) a more prudent strategy]. I said something to the effect of "(The other player) is ranked 550! Let's not be so aggressive with each other." I was told by the higher ranking player that this is team-making and condemnable behavior.

I'd like to know whether trying to work against a higher-ranked player early on is poor sportsmanship. Or, does it make sense to use the game rankings to get a sense of who is the bigger threat on the board? The higher ranked player did concede that it was ok to target him after he was in the lead. But that begged the question, how much of a head start should we have given him, before we "figured out" that he was likely to wreck us?

Thanks.

[RobertBr]

It is definitely poor sportsmanship. In Chess it is known as a compact, where you play in a way that is aimed at bettering standing a tournament rather than trying to win. In a 3-way ELO game with a wide margin you and the other weak player are best off co-operating as you will both gain ELO if the strongest player finishes last, but its definitely bad manners, and worse to actively suggest it. In fact a common in-person rule for this game is that if you have looked at your next tile (remember officially in the rules you don't draw a tile until your turn) that you do not comment on the moves of other players at all.

P.S My experience is that weak players prefer to steal rather than share and that players schooled in 2-player also tend to prefer a steal so you should expect that error to be quite common on this site.

[ReblScum]

Thanks for the reply. I can't tell if you're a moderator of some sort, or if you are just offering your opinion here. (Thanks, either way.)

The chess analogy is not really helpful since there are no three-player chess games.

I certainly wasn't revealing information that is meant to be secret. I wasn't even suggesting we "gang up". I was suggesting that it was folly to devote so many resources to fighting each other while ignoring the bigger threat on the table.

I would certainly do that in a real-life game, even if there weren't an elite player involved. Like, is there no table talk / meta-game at all?

My question is: is it ethical to go after a player simply because they are ranked (much) higher?
If not, how much a lead are we supposed to let them get, before we can suddenly "realize" they are a threat and react accordingly?

Finally, since I'm new here... If there is a link to site / game specific etiquette, I'd be glad for a link.


Thanks, again.

[whatshisbucket]

Targeting a player because they are rated higher is both unsportsmanlike and foolish. With the Elo rating system (which is in place on this site), your rating change at the end of a game is only based on how you finish, it does not matter which players are ahead of or behind you. Surely targeting the highest rated player at the table will make it too easy for any other players to succeed, and thus is certainly not the best strategy in the long run.

From a strategic perspective, you should target those players who you think will finish closest to you, as in that case you have the greatest chance of improving your own result. It is foolish to devote all your resources to hurting a player with an untouchable lead.

[RobertBr]

"The chess analogy is not really helpful since there are no three-player chess games."

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is wrong. A compact occurs precisely occurs precisely because more than two chess players can be competing in a tournament (for your information in the classic version a strong Russian throws a game to a weak America promoting that player ahead of one of their stronger colleagues to give another Russian a win they wouldn't otherwise have, thus boosting their ranking).

And you did not ask a rule question, so not a matter for the moderators, you asked a question about sportsman-like behaviour. Three experienced players have now told you it is rude, accept that and move on. Another lesson in manners, if you ask a question and people tell you the answer but you argue with it then it sounds like you asked the question in bad faith. If you want to carry on engaging in the behaviour (which will boost your ELO) then do so, there is no rule preventing you, but it you are foolish enough to talk about it you no longer have any reason to be surprised when someone calls you out.

[ReblScum]

Thanks for continuing to engage me, RobertBr.

I am not suggesting you're wrong. Let me clarify that in the game in question, I apologized for the mis-step and stopped the behavior at once. And I have no intention to keep at it.

And I will apologize again, as my inability to understand you, seems to have come across as willful blindness to etiquette. It is the opposite. I want to understand why the behavior is unsportsman-like, and where the lines are, so I can navigate them more effectively on my own, moving forward.

I understand what a compact is. I agree that entering into a compact would be unethical and unsportsman-like. But I'm confused (and not helped) by that "comparison", because I don't understand how your comparison addresses the multi-player aspect of Carcasssonne.

If you, or anybody else want to weigh in on the questions I asked in this thread, I would be glad to hear more. Otherwise, I will heed the part of your response that I did understand, and try to stop talking.

[ReblScum]

Targeting a player because they are rated higher is both unsportsmanlike and foolish. With the Elo rating system (which is in place on this site), your rating change at the end of a game is only based on how you finish, it does not matter which players are ahead of or behind you. Surely targeting the highest rated player at the table will make it too easy for any other players to succeed, and thus is certainly not the best strategy in the long run.

From a strategic perspective, you should target those players who you think will finish closest to you, as in that case you have the greatest chance of improving your own result. It is foolish to devote all your resources to hurting a player with an untouchable lead.

I admit I don't understand this reply very well.

I'm in a game with three players I am ranked in the 300s, along with one other player. The third is ranked in the 500s. (I'm referring here to ELO ranking and not score in the game itself.)

You're saying that the two lower ranked players should target each other? Won't that behavior simply reinforce the status quo?

Prior to opening this discussion, my default strategy would be to sabotage the higher ranked player, first. If the lower-ranked player takes the lead, I'd look to disrupt their pay, instead. I'm hearing that is an unsportsman-like way to play - so I am reexamining my play here.

Thanks, all, for replying.

[euklid314]

As a player with a relatively high ELO rating (around 600 at the moment), my personal opinion is:

If I am in a 3-player or 4-player game with weaker players I expect them to attack me hard right from the start - harder than they should attack themselves. If they have a tile to place either unfavorable for me or for one of the other opponents they should make the move that is unfavorable for me. In this way they are maximizing their winning chance. As soon as the winning probabilities are changed (i.e. the top ELO player falls behind) their tactics should change of course. You should always play to maximize your own winning chances.

An example of what I would not accept at all: If the red player begins a city, the blue player finishes this city, giving points only to the red player. And later the other way round, the red player gifting points back to the blue player. In this way the two players would double the probability to get the tiles they need. Such a game would be against the spirit of the game.

A comment like "Let's rather attack the strong player on the table and not each other" I would not appreciate. But not because it is not correct, but because it is always bad manners to give advice during a game. If a player is inexperienced and makes moves that are bad to themselves (and even help another player) that is - unfortunately - part of the game. Giving the weaker player advice during a game to help him improve his winning chances (or your own) is bad sportmanship. One can give strategical hints after the game (if hints are welcome).

If you were at a BGA table or a real life table together with friends this would be very different of course. But on this platform we usually do not know each other...