Opinions on 3P Kingmaking

[RoyalRook]

I am pointing out when both have a city next to the 3rd player. I listed out the scenario in plain language, let's keep on topic and restrain from trolling.

[primrose1234]

Your previous position was different so I wanted to make sure you actually changed your mind.

[Jellby]

If placing my final greenery next to my city makes player A the winner over B(because his city also borders that greenery), that means that not placing the greenery makes player B the winner over A.

In that case, the only reasonable action is quitting the game, and letting both A and B be "winners"

[RoyalRook]

Your previous position was different so I wanted to make sure you actually changed your mind.

What are you talking about lolz. Ok, I am just going to assume that you are trolling now.

[RoyalRook]

In summery, null action is the most consistent way to deal with king making situation during end game sequence for the 3rd when no higher placement is possible, especially considering cases like when the 3rd converting greeneries between the other 2 players' cities, which the tie breaker should be the deciding factor.

Another argument is for the 3rd to convert next to the player that hit him the least, yet using that argument exposes that player as a king maker in plain day light. The proper thing to do is to take emotion out of it and let the other players duke it out during the end game sequence when higher placement is possible for the 3rd place finisher, by taking a null action during conversion if an award could be flipped, otherwise converting away from other players' cities.

All in all, null action is the most consistent solution if an uniformed ruling is in place. It's a great topic, since BGA's policy forbids king making and/or team play during a match.

[ft029]

"BGA's policy forbids king making and/or team play during a match." This only applies to very serious king-making-- I'm reminded of a case where an accomplice did nothing all game but fund awards for another player and place greeneries around another player's cities. For anybody who isn't actively boosting a friend's elo like that, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

By definition, any game with 3+ players that has player interaction will have kingmaking. Every action you make will tilt the odds of who is more likely to win by some amount, however miniscule. That's the nature of such games. Trying to get rid of it is futile.

[ChesterDeBester]

Give credit to one player for getting a city in a spot that will score a point when someone else places a greenery. Right?

Exactly. In a 3+ player game, people are also making judgements on possible future actions from their opponents. It is more than reasonable to think that people will place greeneries in the way that it gives them the most VP, so placing a city so it "leeches" most points is part of the game. If someone then suddenly places his greeneries in an inefficient way to supposedly avoid kingmaking, they are still kingmaking.

If they don't place it at all, they are still kingmaking.

[primrose1234]

Give credit to one player for getting a city in a spot that will score a point when someone else places a greenery. Right?

Exactly. In a 3+ player game, people are also making judgements on possible future actions from their opponents. It is more than reasonable to think that people will place greeneries in the way that it gives them the most VP, so placing a city so it "leeches" most points is part of the game. If someone then suddenly places his greeneries in an inefficient way to supposedly avoid kingmaking, they are still kingmaking.

If they don't place it at all, they are still kingmaking.

Exactly. This is the strategic depth that is left out by RoyalRook. Another thing: if someone has high plant prod, I assume he will convert and have an impact on cultivator.

[FrankJones]

This is such a weird discussion.

As has been noted by almost everyone in this thread:

1) Throughout the game, anticipate what the other players are likely to do. This is part of the strategy.
2) If a player fails to do this, it is not the 3rd place player's fault that the 2nd place player finished in second place.
3) Choosing not to do something is still making a choice.

Calling this "kingmaking" is a bit odd.

Consider tiebreakers in sports. This comes up a lot in the NFL because the low number of games results in a lot of ties for playoff spots or seeding.
Sometimes one team needs another team to lose in order to gain a playoff spot.

So, team A needs team B to beat team C.

Team C is out of the playoff hunt. Should team C forfeit ??? Of course not. And if Team C beats team B, "causing" team A to miss the playoffs... oh well. Team A should have handled its own business and won more games.

In much rarer cases, a tiebreaker could come down to points scored or point differential.
Sane question. Should team A be whining about the fact that team C actually played the game instead of just taking a knee for 60 minutes?
No.

Etc. The possible examples are nearly limitless.

[RoyalRook]

"BGA's policy forbids king making and/or team play during a match." This only applies to very serious king-making-- I'm reminded of a case where an accomplice did nothing all game but fund awards for another player and place greeneries around another player's cities. For anybody who isn't actively boosting a friend's elo like that, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

By definition, any game with 3+ players that has player interaction will have kingmaking. Every action you make will tilt the odds of who is more likely to win by some amount, however miniscule. That's the nature of such games. Trying to get rid of it is futile.

That's why we only concerning end game sequence.