Opinions on 3P Kingmaking

[RoyalRook]

You make best play during the game or season, at the end of game and season only placement/final ranking matters. You play to win, if you can't win but instead affecting others final standing at the end you are king making or if you are already secured 1st place but needlessly affecting others' placement you are prince making. It’s pretty basic, you just have to play more and try to win a 3p arena season to understand it.

Wait.

Let me get this straight, because I do not want to misquote you.

Are you suggesting that players who are not in a position to win the Arena season must sit out or forfeit games to avoid affecting the standings?

Suppose a player who is not in the top 10 in Arena ranking is playing on the final day of the season. This player gets matched up with the player ranked 2nd in arena.

If this player wins, it cements the ranking of the top ranked player. But if this player loses, it will allow the second-place arena player to move into first place and win the season.

Now what? If this player ends up in a potentially winning position, what is the course of action? Completing the game and winning causes one player to win the arena season. Conceding the game causes a different player to win.

No because he plays his own game to gain his own higher standing. K suggested a scenario when two competing arena participants that if one lower the others standing he will win the season instead. You have to go back to a earlier page to understand what we two are talking about.

[FrankJones]

Each player should be expected to try to win each arena game. If that causes a change in the top spots of the arena rankings, oh well.

I'm not sure how or why this factors into the kingmaking discussion.

[kevinsbane]

Each player should be expected to try to win each arena game. If that causes a change in the top spots of the arena rankings, oh well.

I'm not sure how or why this factors into the kingmaking discussion.

It was just my hypothetical that shows how inconsistent the "null action principle" is. Royalrook claimed it could be easily enforced, but I disagree. It was (another) example to show why it isn't so simple.

That's besides the issue that the "null action principle" calls for people to deliberately stop playing the game in some arbitrary circumstances, which is silly.

[FrankJones]

Each player should be expected to try to win each arena game. If that causes a change in the top spots of the arena rankings, oh well.

I'm not sure how or why this factors into the kingmaking discussion.

It was just my hypothetical that shows how inconsistent the "null action principle" is. Royalrook claimed it could be easily enforced, but I disagree. It was (another) example to show why it isn't so simple.

That's besides the issue that the "null action principle" calls for people to deliberately stop playing the game in some arbitrary circumstances, which is silly.

Agreed 100%.

I respect Rook's ability to remain calm and state his case. I know it's frustrating arguing against a large number of people.

I don't agree with Rook - but I also generally avoid 3-player games because I have seen frustrating situations similar to ones discussed in this thread. As we've all noted, these situation arise. There's no avoiding them.

This also means I often play 2-player in games that are probably better as 3-player or 4-player.

Earth, for example
Where, maybe in Multiplayer, the cards are less annoyingly imbalanced.

And certainly in Terraforming Mars, there are some balance issues in 2-player.

[Bogeyun]

Here is the thing, there is some merit to some of Rook's argument. But the idea that null action is the best course of action at end game I will always disagree with.

With that said, the general principle that Rook is preaching where the 3rd party should try avoid influencing the battle between 1st/2nd as much as possible if they are guaranteed to lose the game is one that generally makes sense and is logical.

In practice - it's just really impossible to say how this is best done, because if given the choice between Action 1 that helps Player #1 quite a lot, Action #2 that helps player #2 a little, or Action #3 - non action, that helps player #2 a lot.

What is the best choice? There's just so many complex scenarios and never gonna be right/wrong answers to how best to handle most situations other than do what you feel makes most logical sense without blantantly kingmaking for one player.

It also doesn't help when half your argument to try prove you are right Rook is just to tell people to play more 3p Arena and brag about winning a season, when there's countless people who have better understanding and skill of 3p than you (eg: the majority of the top 2p players), but this argument to authority is just silly regardless.

[RoyalRook]

It's not about authority, I genuinely think people needs a real 3p arena experience in TM to understand some if the things that i am talking about. I have discussed similar issues with other top 3p arena participants and there are not much disagreements on king making issues, since it's really plain once you went through the scenarios over and over since the top ranked players usually bears the pains of king making the most consistently. They are the target.

You think majority of top 2p players have better understanding of 3p is cute, they talked alot but somehow majority of them was unable to perform properly after logged on huge amount of 3p arena games for those seasons. That's pretty cool no? They talked lot of games, I told them it's not the same. They dismissed lots of players on BGA, but they couldn't crush it like 2p.

I lived on 3p Tharsis, all the way from non corp era to prelude. You think someone who grind buggy 2p Venus days in days out against mostly blind elo opponent with cheating mods under preset seeds have better understanding of 3p Thasis with no assisting tools and open elo than me? The seed here is not preset, we are not close for 3p Tharsis. That's just fact.

[Bogeyun]

It's not about authority, I genuinely think people needs a real 3p arena experience in TM to understand some if the things that i am talking about. I have discussed similar issues with other top 3p arena participants and there are not much disagreements on king making issues, since it's really plain once you went through the scenarios over and over since the top ranked players usually bears the pains of king making the most consistently. They are the target.

You think majority of top 2p players have better understanding of 3p is cute, they talked alot but somehow majority of them was unable to perform properly after logged on huge amount of 3p arena games for those seasons. That's pretty cool no? They talked lot of games, I told them it's not the same. They dismissed lots of players on BGA, but they couldn't crush it like 2p.

I lived on 3p Tharsis, all the way from non corp era to prelude. You think someone who grind buggy 2p Venus days in days out against mostly blind elo opponent with cheating mods under preset seeds have better understanding of 3p Thasis with no assisting tools and open elo than me? The seed here is not preset, we are not close for 3p Tharsis. That's just fact.

We are not close for 3p Tharsis - I am glad we can agree on this

[rambling_coherently]

This entire thread just makes me really happy 3-4p Arena will never happen again

[FrankJones]

Rook:

Your main point has consistently been that players who do not regularly play 3-player arena do not have enough knowledge / experience / skill to understand your point.

There is a problem with that assessment. People who play TFM are in general of above-average intelligence. Intelligence and skills and knowledge are transferrable. A player who has experience with any 3-player game, arena or non-arena, is fully capable of understanding issues pertaining to kingmaking.

If someone disagrees with your point, it does not mean the person fails to understand your point. It may just mean the person fully understands what you are saying but has a different opinion on the matter.

[ArgyleUltor]

The greenery placement example is relatively simple - I tend to maximize my score in cases of doubt.

A harder case would be one where I had a choice of two actions with equivalent victory points for me which would decide first and second place.

Feels bad, but relatively rare. I'd tend to place to maximize remaining credits, with small attention to spite if someone has been targeting me.

For more than 2p, there is usually some king making that is unavoidable.