Opinions on 3P Kingmaking

[RoyalRook]

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.

Once again only concerning end game sequence, if both players have a city next to the 3rd, then null action is the correct call since you will have to king making either way, which shows that null action is the most consistent action to avoid king making.

[kevinsbane]

Once again only concerning end game sequence, if both players have a city next to the 3rd, then null action is the correct call since you will have to king making either way, which shows that null action is the most consistent action to avoid king making.

Engage in Kingmaking: enabling another player to win on purpose while there is a better move to make for yourself.

According to the rule, the null action you propose in the situation you propose is explicitly against the rules. To not place said greenery literally enables another player to win, on purpose, when there is a better move to make for yourself.

To follow the rule to the letter, you must place the greenery because that is a better move for yourself. If it changes the winner is not the relevant clause; it is the fact that it is a better move for the third place player that matters.

In my opinion, it's in the third player's prerogative to do whatever he wants to do. Policing his decision at that point is silly.

[primrose1234]

No its not because most common king/prince making involves ecoline. Maximizing her score and gift free points can be avoided via passing, the same thing goes for 1st and 3rd placement funding an award while their own outcome has been decided. Null action is the best solution, you just need to have a real go at 3p arena to understand this.

Null action is the proper and only solution because it's consistent.

So as the player in 3rd place, you would not convert your multiple greeneries and king-make cultivator (giving P2 2nd place on the award, and the win) even though Player1 funded it assuming you would convert since you have a bunch of plant prod?

It's a yes or no question.

Read the OP's scenario, the 1st player has secured the cultivator, the orignal funding had very little consideration for the 3rd's end game plant production.

When you are in a king making situation and out of running for 1st and 2nd, the most consistent and safe way of dealing with it is to do nothing. I would gladly to hear some input from other past 3p highly ranked arena participants. From what I observed, it's the most fair way of avoiding king making, the lower ranked players on the other hand, often chosen to maximize their score during end game instead of avoiding king making scenarios. Some of the ecoline players would even go farther, intentionally convert greeneries away from their own cities to king make. Honestly, I don't think I saw any 600 Elo 3p matches ended up with someone king make. Once you grind the 3p arena, the top competitors all had an understanding, because they are often the top target for king makers.

Here you argued the 3rd is not allowed to convert greeneries even if they are only next to his cities.

[RoyalRook]

If he doesn't improve his own placement by converting an additional greenery and affected others standing, it's LITERALLY king making by the letter, by converting he king made another player, duuh.

A prevalent argument for maximizing scoring doesn't account for 3rd have to convert next to either players, since both have a city next to the 3rd. Therefore, Null action is consistently the right action to take across all the scenarios and it can be easily enforced uniformly. So when awards such as landlord is involved you can still rely on the null action principle. You don't have to follow it, but you will be king making which is what we are talking about.

Finally and furthermore, if the other players knowing the 3rd won't effect the final standing, they can truly plan their end game sequence out and properly compete for the final standing consistently throughout a 3p/4p season.

[primrose1234]

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.

This should be the minimal consensus and I can't see anyone else other than RoyalRook not agreeing to this. It is simple that doing nothing is a choice and an action itself.

Also kevinsbane pointed out that your approach to endgame situations might be against BGA TOS. It is time to admit that you are wrong when even the TOS are in play.

[kevinsbane]

If he doesn't improve his own placement by converting an additional greenery and affected others standing, it's LITERALLY king making by the letter, by converting he king made another player, duuh.

the letter of the rule doesn't specify placement, just what is a better move. And even then, doing nothing is also an action that determines the king.

A prevalent argument for maximizing scoring doesn't account for 3rd have to convert next to either players, since both have a city next to the 3rd. Therefore, Null action is consistently the right action to take across all the scenarios and it can be easily enforced uniformly. So when awards such as landlord is involved you can still rely on the null action principle. You don't have to follow it, but you will be king making which is what we are talking about.

Maximising your score seems to be a consistent principle in score based games. I think King making in this context is fine. I'm ok with anyone in this situation doing so, and am fine with calling it King making.

Finally and furthermore, if the other players knowing the 3rd won't effect the final standing, they can truly plan their end game sequence out and properly compete for the final standing consistently throughout a 3p/4p season.

You bring up a season of play. Let us test the how far your null action principle goes.

You are ranked #1 on arena. Player 1 is #2. You're not up by much; just enough that a 1st place win by player 1 vs you will cause enough of a point swing to bump you out of #1, but a 2nd place finish will not. In the final arena game, you are in 3rd place with no hope of improving your rank in the current game. You have the last play and have enough plants for a greenery. Your available greenery locations will score a point for one of the two players, causing one or the other to win. If you score for player 2, player 1 drops to 2nd, and doesn't win enough arena points to overtake you. If you do nothing, player 1 takes 1st and wins enough arena points to take #1 in the arena rankings. Shall we enforce the null principle?

[RoyalRook]

You are affecting your final arena placement, so you are not king making. It would only be king making if you can not gain a higher placement at end game or final arena ranking . Isn't funny that, once again we will only concern it during end game or end of season? Talking about consistency.

Reminder: if you can gain advancement during end game or end of season, you are not considered king making. But once again, only during end game or end of season. Basically, Arena is a game on top of your game, end of an arena season is end game, final day of an arena season is the end game sequence. That's why everyone should participate in arena and try to win it, or you are missing out. It's a bloody good time.

Anyone who possess the skill level to win an arena season would know this: arena season, the game, it's so much fun. You can grind it out with volume, going on a winning streak, seeking certain skill level, play it straight with whoever, push yourself for one more game at the top, or hold and pray. Just so many ways to approach. You talk like this because you experienced it, but simply didnt realize it. Although the TM community is little crazier than Earth, lolz.

[primrose1234]

You might have missed my last posting, Rook, the last sentence was addressed directly at you.

[Jellby]

If you are 3rd and far behind, and cannot possibly improve your position, why should you care what's the score of the other 2 players? Why would you be expected to analyze how your play will make one or the other win? You're just concerned about yourself, you do what you see fit, you place your greenery where you like it best, in order to improve your score, or your average score, or to make a nice pattern... or to make player A or B win. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have put you in that position.

My point is:
1) The 3rd player can do whatever they want.
2) Whatever they do, maybe they didn't realize that would decide the winner.

[FrankJones]

Rook:

In a game of Wingspan, where the active player must take one of four actions, should that player ignore his own best scoring play to avoid triggering someone else's pink powered bird?

In a game of Earth where again, the active player must choose one of 4 actions, should the active player thoroughly scan every player's player mat to see which of the 4 main actions will have the least effect on other players' scores? Earth usually has no real-time scoring, making it impossible to even know where the other players scores rank relative to one another.

Keep in mind that both of these situations are likely impossible to calculate in real-time games. Should ap layer risk a forfeit penalty attempting to do so?

In a real-time game of Terraforming Mars, will a player have enough time to calculate exactly what effect his greenery will have on other players?

In a game of Azul, should a player, in addition to trying to calculate his own best play, also expand the decision tree to figure out how many points each opponent will score for each of his own different decisions available?

Personally, I think it would be absurd for anyone to have these expectations, but, I can respect the fact that this is your opinion even though I don't see it that way.