Collusion working with high elo ranked player Amakan

[DonkeyLaugh]

End of game : simjjong wins
Return to main sitePlay againWant to play with same configuration ? Here is the seed of your game :

eNoNjckRxDAIwFoKhzmeYCjEyTpVuPjNjJ4aic_9rI0s4PSzoVwnXFzTrgROpCSdhmVPuZZbMbVygzZd7VwnxIMgldMlIRHmnv6WSbmXYI-mt1lO_AJWYJpP-3qfNEqxwIq8-Cpte3uME_aEU9B3Xok7CZMlh0z7uFwnlO1Ca1t_CL8tQw


Hi guys I am relatively new at this game, and I know Agricola is a game where you need to strategize and mess with others to get ahead. I just cannot understand this move of collusion between green and red (high ranked player amakan and low ranked player zlxq77777). I am getting a bit tired of this game because I feel others are working against me. Would like some feedback and if possible some support in reporting this type of behaviour.

The low ranked player and I have not had any arguments nor I purposely or maliciously messed up anyone. On my last turn, I needed to play the lesson card to gather all the resources on the board to guarantee second or a win. But zlxq on his final turn played an unnecessary lesson card to push amakan to get second by preventing me from taking the lesson slot.

If I am overreacting I would also like to know and if so, I will likely just quit playing Agricola

[valchan]

I have played over 2000 rounds of Agricola.
I checked the replay and it didn't look like particularly unnatural behavior. At least, not as unusual or weird.

zlxq had already established that he was in last place in this game. His best move would be to get 2sheep, but if he didn't get it, it would make no difference to the outcome. The Minstrel he played is a very difficult card to use. I have not seen it once in the last 100 games. Since he was going to lose anyway, he may have decided to get 2sheep with such an unusual card. Or maybe he simply wanted to influence the outcome of the game in some way, to the extent that his score was not compromised as much as possible, and you happened to be influenced.

In this game, every action affects the other players. It is very common to be disadvantaged by the play of an opponent who is not competing for a position with you. When you are in a situation where you are sure to lose, even acting in such a way that you never get in the way of another player can be a kingmaker. If you continue to play this game, you will need to either accept this or choose to play a two player game.

[alexwjb]

I watched the game as well. I feel for you, it's really frustrating when a move like that gets blocked in such an unusual way. Playing Minstrel to get the sheep rather than just taking the sheep is not something you can predict!

However, I don't think this was collusion. For one thing, I don't think green could know how much you wanted the occupation space. You could have played an occupation many times in the last few rounds of the game and did other things instead, so there was no particular reason to think you really wanted it. I understand that you probably wanted the Transactor card to be surprise so that Amakan and others wouldn't take resources to block you. But that does leave the risk of the space being blocked on the very last turn.

Green had played Patron and clearly enjoyed playing occupations even if it was a bit dubious (earlier in the game he played one of the weakest cards in the game, Loudmouth). Playing Minstrel got them the sheep anyway in an interesting way, and with Patron it didn't cost them any food, so they didn't hurt themselves.

Also: earlier in the game, green didn't build a room, leaving the space open for you which led to you getting the second growth. If green and red were colluding, green would not have done that.

So I agree with Valchan. Very frustrating outcome but I don't think green/red should be accused of collusion on the basis of this game. I hope you keep playing Agricola, it's a great game, and hopefully things break better for you next time!

[DonkeyLaugh]

Thank you both for taking the time to watch and help

[Rubberduckbacon]

So, first thing I noticed was I have red-thumb you (and made a notice...). I only red-thumb when players quit or is very salty/whining/b*tching in chat. So without reviewing the game - I believe you are overreacting. With 10 quits in your last played games (all mid/late game) - I think you should follow your own adwise...