IS IT EVER OK TO TELL OTHER PLAYERS HOW TOP PLAY?

[Liallan]

Liallan you are right about the tokaido example. I do try and just go over how they are scored (which implies different is better, but explains why over just simply stating that it is the way I implied in my post).

I don't have any real response - just didn't want you to think I was ignoring this. After all, it's always nice when someone says you're right.

[ringersoll]

I am a fairly good Hive player and when playing with a newbie I always ask if they want comments. If yes then I tell them that I will comment on his/her move when asked, I will tell ythenwhy I made a specific move, BUT I will not tell them what to do because I do not like playing against myself.

[Liallan]

BUT I will not tell them what to do because I do not like playing against myself.

Haha - interesting point.

[Call me Ishmael]

What if the way they are playing is unethical - intentional or not? Yesterday I was playing Love Letter. In a nutshell, you play one card per turn against one of your opponents trying to knock them out of the round. The first player to win 4 rounds wins the game.

One player was in the lead. All other things being equal, the only ethical target is the leader, for any attempt to knock out a lower player is a move to make the lower player and yourself lose, and the leading player move further ahead to victory.

The rogue player in question had a baron and a princess, (a guaranteed elimination of the target player) and instead of playing this against the lead player, he played it against the low guy, knocking him out. Then it was the winning player's turn, who handily guessed he had the princess, eliminating him and moving even further into the lead.

An attempt was made to explain how this method didn't make sense at best, and was unethical at worst, and he said he understood, yet the leader was soon at his game point, and instead of targeting the leader to prevent him from taking the game, cards were played against other players, allowing the leader to walk away with the victory.

So basically by leaving the leader alone and trying to knock out lower players, he was giving the game to the leader. I got comments by him and another player to the effect, "Aw, this is just for fun". If it is just for fun, why wasn't the ELO rating turned off?

I don't believe that there was any collusion between these two players, nevertheless I believe it was still completely unethical for this player to not play to win, and instead to play to make low guy (and thus himself) lose. It was blatant kingmaking, even though he may not have known or had and premeditated collusion with person he was giving the victory to.

After explaining and watching him continue to attack lower players and allow the high guy an easy victory, I had no choice but to report him and give him a red thumb. It it hard to get into a game of Love Letter, and very disappointing to have the game spoiled by someone who isn't playing to win.

Yes, I took the time to explain my position to this player, effectively "Telling him how to play" as you put it.

[Liallan]

One player was in the lead. All other things being equal, the only ethical target is the leader, for any attempt to knock out a lower player is a move to make the lower player and yourself lose, and the leading player move further ahead to victory.

Sorry, I don't consider that "unethical." Are you sure that's the word you want?

An attempt was made to explain how this method didn't make sense at best, and was unethical at worst, and he said he understood, yet the leader was soon at his game point, and instead of targeting the leader to prevent him from taking the game, cards were played against other players, allowing the leader to walk away with the victory.

Are you absolutely certain that he understood? Just because he said so doesn't mean he did.

So basically by leaving the leader alone and trying to knock out lower players, he was giving the game to the leader. I got comments by him and another player to the effect, "Aw, this is just for fun". If it is just for fun, why wasn't the ELO rating turned off?

I think he meant "I'm not taking this as seriously as you are." And I get that makes it frustrating for you (been there), but that doesn't mean he comprehends that it's frustrating for you. If he's really just having fun, the concept of that frustration may have no meaning for him. And maybe he doesn't care about ELO. If he wasn't the one doing the inviting, he may not have been paying attention to that. And he could just as easily come on here asking why ELO is so important to you. This is obviously a person who feels differently about games than you do, and I doubt you're going to be able to change that.

After explaining and watching him continue to attack lower players and allow the high guy an easy victory, I had no choice but to report him and give him a red thumb. It it hard to get into a game of Love Letter, and very disappointing to have the game spoiled by someone who isn't playing to win.

Can't wait to see the results of that. What did you report him for? Not playing to win? Or if you reported kingmaking, that has to be intentional, with understanding and knowledge of what kingmaking is. If you're describing it correctly, I would guess that either the guy simply doesn't understand the game, or just doesn't take games seriously. You might try to consider a little more that he perhaps just really doesn't understand the game. Explaining the "proper" way to play doesn't mean everyone will understand it. Either way, I would call this someone you just don't want to play with again, because you obviously have very different playing ideas and styles.

Be frustrated, make a note not to play with him again, and move on. Perhaps rather than telling him how to play, you should be explaining that a lot of people play (obviously) more seriously than he does, and that he should try to seek out others like himself who are not interested in winning, or only play games with ELO off. I think that would be a better lesson for him, than trying to force him into playing the way you want him to.

And by the way, if it sounds like I "don't get it," I wouldn't want to play with him either and it would frustrate me as well. The difference is that I would've just left a "personal" red thumb to not play with him again, and made myself a note on him. I just got done leaving a note on someone concerning that game - it appears he didn't even read the rules. Maybe your guy didn't either.

[Shaq Jenkins]

What if the way they are playing is unethical - intentional or not? Yesterday I was playing Love Letter. In a nutshell, you play one card per turn against one of your opponents trying to knock them out of the round. The first player to win 4 rounds wins the game.

One player was in the lead. All other things being equal, the only ethical target is the leader, for any attempt to knock out a lower player is a move to make the lower player and yourself lose, and the leading player move further ahead to victory.

The rogue player in question had a baron and a princess, (a guaranteed elimination of the target player) and instead of playing this against the lead player, he played it against the low guy, knocking him out. Then it was the winning player's turn, who handily guessed he had the princess, eliminating him and moving even further into the lead.

An attempt was made to explain how this method didn't make sense at best, and was unethical at worst, and he said he understood, yet the leader was soon at his game point, and instead of targeting the leader to prevent him from taking the game, cards were played against other players, allowing the leader to walk away with the victory.

So basically by leaving the leader alone and trying to knock out lower players, he was giving the game to the leader. I got comments by him and another player to the effect, "Aw, this is just for fun". If it is just for fun, why wasn't the ELO rating turned off?

I don't believe that there was any collusion between these two players, nevertheless I believe it was still completely unethical for this player to not play to win, and instead to play to make low guy (and thus himself) lose. It was blatant kingmaking, even though he may not have known or had and premeditated collusion with person he was giving the victory to.

After explaining and watching him continue to attack lower players and allow the high guy an easy victory, I had no choice but to report him and give him a red thumb. It it hard to get into a game of Love Letter, and very disappointing to have the game spoiled by someone who isn't playing to win.

Yes, I took the time to explain my position to this player, effectively "Telling him how to play" as you put it.

Is it possible that this was intentionally part of the player's strategy? I've played many Love Letter games where players will target someone below them rather than the leader because they don't want to come in last place, especially in ELO on games. It's a terrible strategy that I don't agree with, but it is one that seems popular on BGA (though not as much as it used to be). There was a thread a few months ago that discussed this strategy.

[Call me Ishmael]

It seems BGA rules should be changed so as not to reward this kind of behaviour

[donteatpoop]

I always handle it like this when I see a new player: Hi, if you have any questions just ask.

If they're doing terribly I'll offer: Do you need any tips or anything?

Other than that, if they don't reply or don't ask questions or ask for tips then I assume they are fine with learning on their own.

I've been the new player with unhelpful experienced players and it sucks. But I also understand that some peopel don't want help, want to figure it out on their own.

So yeah, ELO or no; if a new player wants help you should try to help them. Just not force it on them.

[RobertBr]

Player A was clearly right. In a multiplayer game with ELO on if someone objects to a player giving tactical advice the tactical advice needs to stop. Players in tournament and ELO games need to accept that it is perfectly permissable to play to win and what was described here crosses an important line (and is fundementally different to coaching a beginner in a two player game).

[CB Droege]

While in a single game it is usually best to attack the player with the most hand-wins in their pot, so as to make it less likely they'll end the game before you can. If someone is looking at the long game, and thinking about their ELO also, there are other strategies that could make sense, and not be just terrible newbiness. For example: the ELO system encourages you to attack the person with the lowest ELO, whatever position they might be in, since that'll make it less likely they end the game with more wins than you, which could be devastating to your score, while a person who is already higher than you in ELO is not a big threat.

I don't do this myself, but it's important to remember that people can play the game however they want with whatever motivation they want, as long as they are not throwing the game or king-making on purpose, any other strategy, even bad ones, are fine.

Besides, if everyone just played the best move every time, then you might as well just play against computers, or not at all. Part of the challenge is reacting to things you didn't expect the other players to do. It's a bit of a silly and random game anyway.