Opinions on 3P Kingmaking

[xspuipuke]

The opposite would also be true, wouldn‘t it? You couldn‘t blame someone who does not place their greeneries or competes in the awards if they know they will come dead last either way.

[uo111]

This is just a different type of trolley problem. There is no right or wrong answer. But it is funny to see people so adamant that their opinion is the correct one.

[RoyalRook]

The opposite would also be true, wouldn‘t it? You couldn‘t blame someone who does not place their greeneries or competes in the awards if they know they will come dead last either way.

If they affect the placement then null action is the most consistent and easiest way to discourage king making. To keep things consistent you know?

[globus99]

This is just a different type of trolley problem. There is no right or wrong answer. But it is funny to see people so adamant that their opinion is the correct one.

Exactly. Given the premise of the hypothetical, whether you choose "action" or "inaction/passing", or any one of the actions available to you, you are directly determining the winner, regardless of your mindset or any ethical or fairplay considerations. It's easy to imagine scenarios where this is the case. Part of the adamancy is because people believe their philosophy of how to act in that scenario is "correct" or somehow the most rational and that other people should share their mindset. As is evident in this thread, different philosophies can exist and be justified. Personally, I have always favored "you try to maximize your outcome", but as Rook points out, if you cannot change your placement, then essentially your actions are meaningless if you continue pursuing maximizing your score. At the same time, it is strange, as others point out, for someone to "unplug their controller" and perma-pass once they believe they can no longer advance their placement — when do they realize that they are finished? How are the other players supposed to know when that player will decide that they are going to call it quits? Simply by choosing the moment they give up and stop maximizing their score/placement they are kingmaking, or at least it's easy to imagine scenarios where this is the case.

The biggest pain point is that nobody agrees on what the "correct" behavior is in a kingmaking scenario. As some have pointed out, the BGA kingmaking policy could be clarified to basically say exactly how you are expected to behave in that type of a scenario. Only then can players "predict" what that player will do and will have no excuse that the player was engaging in "kingmaking", because the policy literally explains how you are expected to behave and thus what to expect. Otherwise people will never agree on what constitutes the "default behavior" and what constitutes "kingmaking". Of course, it might be hard to actually write a policy that leaves no ambiguity (and in any situation without a definitive answer you're back at square one). At that point it would make more sense to code rules into the game for Arena matches in 3p+ so there is always 'fair play'. But that is obviously complicated, and a big reason to play games in general is because you get to make your own decisions and have agency. This whole topic is in a way attempting to remove agency from players so that there is a consistent standard, but the impracticality of doing so highlights why formats/games with kingmaking situations that are this difficult to resolve are not well-suited to competitive play.

Personally, I only play 3p+ with irl friends and family, if I want a competitive experience it's going to be 2p. None of the suggestions I made are exciting, yet I feel without some sort of mandate it's truly not resolvable. Even trying to build consensus amongst players, there will be people that haven't "learned the meta" and have justifications for their own choice, and that's just human nature.

All that being said, to answer the original question, personally I'm playing the greenery, I'm trying to maximize my gamestate relative to the other players. And if I were in the other player's shoes I would expect the other player to play the greenery. I understand others may think differently. Anyways, that's my rant. Let me know if walls of text are not in vogue on BGA forums

[globus99]

Also, as has been pointed out, the reality is that kingmaking is not only an endgame phenomenon. Well, maybe you can define it that way. But every time you have to choose a player to target and have multiple legal targets, you might be functionally engaging in kingmaking. You can say it's all good if you're simply trying to win, but just imagine a scenario where you have multiple possible targets and you can't distinguish which one gives you the best chance of winning, perhaps it really makes no difference to your personal chance of winning, but whoever is targeted is crippled significantly. It's at least possible to imagine a scenario like that even if it's not very likely or practical. Or even, just assume the player has trouble analyzing the game state and can not identify which target benefits them more even if there is a marginal edge, but still they must choose. Arguably decisions like this early in a game are more impactful than endgame kingmaking which is only possible if the scores end up very close, whereas early choices that cripple someone can result in runaway wins/losses. Though I admit I haven't been around for a 3p arena season, but I believe this sort of scenario comes up all the time in 3p+. You can take it upon yourself to argue who is in the lead, but then other factors like player skill can weigh in and again there is not a consistent, objective, universally agreed rubric for how to choose. Just another reason why 3p+ games are not great for "competitive" experiences. In 2p all of these headaches completely vanish.

[Sonid]

It depends on who ate more of my plants

This is the correct answer.

[StrandedKnight]

The opposite would also be true, wouldn‘t it? You couldn‘t blame someone who does not place their greeneries or competes in the awards if they know they will come dead last either way.

If they affect the placement then null action is the most consistent and easiest way to discourage king making. To keep things consistent you know?

As Bogeyun pointed out, there are scenarios where you are forced to kingmake either way.

The most neutral and consistent way to play is to act as you normally would have done, i.e. to maximize your score. When calculating the endgame, the players fighting for first place can only assume that you will play out the game to its logical conclusion. Perhaps they fund Cultivator with the expectation that you will overtake the third player, etc.

Passing in the final gen when you could have placed a greenery is arguably a more aggressive kingmaking move than converting the plants. But I wouldn't hold a grudge against someone either way, because they are put in a situation where it's impossible to be completely neutral.

[FrankJones]

I have no expectation in any game that any player will pass (if allowed) or take a sub-optimal action (in "Earth" for example, or "Azul"). If I failed to plan strategically for what the other players are likely to do or are obviously going to do, that's my problem.

[jgsugden]

I always go for the best 'net' score, which is the best I can do when compared to the top 'other' player. If I can score 1 point, but it will result in the best team that is not me scoring 5, I won't score the point. If I am not the final player, I do my best to guess what others will do and account for it in my planning - which is easy for final greenery, but not for last turn scheming.

[ChesterDeBester]

This is just a different type of trolley problem. There is no right or wrong answer. But it is funny to see people so adamant that their opinion is the correct one.

The trolley problem has a clear correct answer. Just too many people too weak to act on it.