Starvation strategy abusers

[Liallan]

So If people are willing to use starvation, other players should collaborate and imediately join forces to win the same city slot each time, thereby ending the game quickly and not allowing the starvation player to build enough points in time. this colluusion strategy is about playing for teh common good over self interest. in the actual stoe age, the selfish tribe member would be banished or shunned as in a collective action by the village. I propose that all of us non-starvation players should use this strategy. has nayone tried this yet?

Plenty of people have tried and know ways to help beat starvation. There's a gazillion posts on this:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/12 ... on-strateg
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/56 ... still-work
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/32 ... cracked-be

[Flemingr2002]

More on Starvation. Its a question of the spirit of the game. I love playing it and now my fun has been taken a way by people who don't respect the spirirt of the game. so yes i will probably stop playing but i not until i rebel against starvation.

My strategy has worked well so far. i've managed to make sure that the starvation person does not win and i have been coming in second so my elo is unaffected. I think others should join me to also play within the normal rules to work together to punish starvation players and not worry about who wins. we can make sure to take the love shack, take any hut cards and meeple cards before the starvation person can get them and we can drill down on one hut slot so the game ends early. or we can all just play starvation as early as possible.

eventually starvation players will stop using the strategy when it becomes less fun -- just like the game is less fun for me, now.

[Flemingr2002]

Staravtion is a great strategy and it is legal. If your goal is to win, then that works. If your goal is to have fun and have a good competition that everyone in the game enjoys, then starvation is terrible. Its more a question of ethics. Do the ends justify the means? I've been experimenting with trying to get my co-players to work against the starvation player and there has been mixed results. In everygame so far, I have been able to make sure the starvation player does not win, but then I usually end up finsishing last. But when there is some cooperation from co-players, I've end up second and the starvation person lost. It has been interesting to watch as a social experiment.

[Liallan]

I suspect that starvation isn't terrible to the person who uses it, and maybe they are having fun. It's terrible to you, and yes, it's terrible to a lot of other people. But obviously the people using it don't think it's terrible, so it's a matter of perspective. I'm not sure you can turn it into an ethical question. Is it ethical to want to "punish" people who use a legal strategy?

It's OK for you to want to find a way to play against this strategy, because isn't that what you do in pretty much every game? Part of strategy (or at least tactics) is paying attention to what others are doing and thwarting their plans. But in any other game, would you consider doing this a "punishment"? It sounds more like vendetta than playing a game. (Is that "fun"?) I don't think that high a percentage of people use that strategy (I've only ever run across it once), so that makes me wonder if you're purposely seeking these players out so you can carry out your punishment.

When the other players are cooperative, great, you come in second. The person who came in 3rd probably isn't that happy about it. And if I saw the strategy being used, I would probably do my own thing to try to deal with it, but I don't know if I'd be happy about someone asking me to follow a specific strategy, especially if it was to my detriment. It's not a co-op game.

But good luck with your crusade.

[Daggerheart]

Post deleted.

[Liallan]

I would guess that people who believe starvation is an auto-winning strategy and don't realize there's any way to beat it, are not going to be people who can handle reading that type of strategy guide.

But... I think that's the first time I've seen anyone say starvation benefits from a short game. (I don't have much experience with it, so just going off what I've read.)

[Thrill Kill]

Many top players choose to play with only 5 meople, and as they are Expert or Master Master ELO they obviously do this sucessfully.

(2 minutes ago I lose to a 522 ELO expert who played with only 5. He always plays 5. I played 10 meople and lost 3 ELO points to fall to 522)

Top players know how to negate the starvation strategy. Lesser players whine about it.

The player whose url you post is barely a "good ELO" player, so the strategy must not be "broken" for him....maybe only for you

Regards

[Thrill Kill]

"I placed all of my meeples on wood and then did not use them. My "strategy" was to show the player how amazingly boring they were making the game. "

So you publicly admit to throwing the game? That is a violation of the site rules. Bravo!

Better ideas:
1) Quit or concede the game rather than unilaterally deciding for everyone what is "boring". (Quite the ego there)
2) Don't play Stone Age - because the rules are not to your liking
3) Develop your own game, host it on your own website, and tell everyone else how they must play
4) Grow up and realize the world is not as only you want it to be

[Daggerheart]

I would guess that people who believe starvation is an auto-winning strategy and don't realize there's any way to beat it, are not going to be people who can handle reading that type of strategy guide.

But... I think that's the first time I've seen anyone say starvation benefits from a short game. (I don't have much experience with it, so just going off what I've read.)

Yes I believe that a short game benefits the player that chooses the starvation strategy. I have not used the strategy for many years since I played at http://www.brettspielwelt.de. But it worked pretty well then... Most don't even know how to play the strategy perfect. But a group of skilled players knows how important some bonuses are for the player, and knows how to delay the match one turn more and similar.
The player don't get the hut he needs, don't get points that turn, and get -10 starvation... ouchy.

[Avid David]

So If people are willing to use starvation, other players should collaborate and imediately join forces to win the same city slot each time, thereby ending the game quickly and not allowing the starvation player to build enough points in time. this colluusion strategy is about playing for teh common good over self interest. in the actual stoe age, the selfish tribe member would be banished or shunned as in a collective action by the village. I propose that all of us non-starvation players should use this strategy. has nayone tried this yet?

If players would collaborate and immediately join forces to win the same 'city' slot each time, thereby ending the game quickly and not allowing the starvation player to build enough points in time, I think that collusion *could* be considered cheating. What is the common good is a matter of perspective; and player self interest, I think, is the point of many games, including this. In the game, each player is a tribe, not a tribe member. In the actual stone age, tribes would compete against each other for resources, as we compete for power-ups, building factors, buildings, and civ cards. If you want to empty a building stack fast to beat the starvation player, then *you* do it; don't ask me to do it for you.