Board Game Arena

Shaq Jenkins wrote:We have completely different perspectives on this issue because I play to win, not to settle for 2nd or 3rd place. That's my philosophy in life - I'm not okay with being just good enough, as I want to be the best.

Well, the best player may not be the one who tries to win every single game, but the one who is more regular and are on top-2 more often.

Shaq Jenkins wrote:Furthermore, in Love Letter, by targeting the person who's leading, the other players now have a better chance at winning. I played a game recently where the score was 3-3-2-1, and the person with only 1 round win actually won the entire game because he didn't settle for gaining anything less than first place. Love Letter is such a unpredictable game - the person who's winning might have 2 or 3 rounds of terrible cards, so why concede and assume that they'll come in first place, anyway? Why make their win easier for them by not challenging them?

He didn't win because he was "seeking anything less than the first place". He won because he was never the primary target.

I got a red thumb yesterday for that.

Actually, aiming the poorest player was the best strategy. It was 3-3-3-2 at the table and the player with 2 points would play right after me. There was one card left on the deck and I was holding Princess and Baron. The player across from me had played a guard on me in the last turn naming the Princess and missed. I knew the poor player had a low card in the hand and I Baroned him, expecting the player across from me would play his card against the other player and not me again.

There was a convulsion on the table, started by the other two, because "that's not the spirit of the game". And, on a "you take that" rage, he played a prince on me and I lost. And earned a red thumb, even after explaining the reasons.

Shaq Jenkins wrote:

Liallan wrote:If I think I can't win, I'll play for 2nd, whether or not there's a scoring system. I play this way in person as well.

I think being able to come in 2nd has meaning. I know there's lots of people who think you either won or you lost, but I think coming in 2nd means you did better than whoever is behind you and I'll take pride in being 2nd in a 5 player game. I always play to win. But if I can't, then I'll go for however high I can, which to me says something about how well I can play. And yes I think I should be rewarded for that.

Furthermore, I have a right to shoot for 2nd if I want. Which is why the concept of discouraging people to play in any way except to win really seriously ticks me off. Because you don't have any right to decide for me that I can't shoot for 2nd (or 3rd) if I want. I always start a game trying to win, but there can come a point when I have to make the decision whether to let that go and just see how well I can play against the others. I know some people will take great risks to win, which can land them last if it fails. I'm just not that kind of player. Usually.

If it earns me more skill points, great. But I do this when no skill points are at stake because that's how I play.

We have completely different perspectives on this issue because I play to win, not to settle for 2nd or 3rd place. That's my philosophy in life - I'm not okay with being just good enough, as I want to be the best.

Good for you. But the fact that people have different perspectives is exactly why I don't like the idea of implementing something that encourages everyone to play the same way and be the same way, and force a certain perspective on other people. I was referring to the person suggesting this idea.

Besides, I DO play to win, but if I feel fairly strongly that I can't, then I'll go for next best thing. At what point I might do that will depend on the game. I was talking about the concept in general and each game is different. I think you're assuming I just go around "settling" all the time. Not that it matters. If that's what I want to do, I have a right to do that.

Furthermore, in Love Letter, by targeting the person who's leading, the other players now have a better chance at winning. I played a game recently where the score was 3-3-2-1, and the person with only 1 round win actually won the entire game because he didn't settle for gaining anything less than first place. Love Letter is such a unpredictable game - the person who's winning might have 2 or 3 rounds of terrible cards, so why concede and assume that they'll come in first place, anyway? Why make their win easier for them by not challenging them?

I think MrWatchdog made a good point. Maybe no one was targeting that player. I wasn't there so I don't know, but it's not always obvious what someone is doing or why something happened. This reminds me of the first time I played Carcassonne with 4 players when I was used to 2 or 3. Suddenly I was doing really terrible, or I'd spend the game in 1st or 2nd the whole time and then suddenly the person in 4th would end up in 2nd place and I'd be knocked into last place. After this happened several times I finally figured it out: stay way behind the whole game cause then no one cares if what they're doing helps you out.

MrWatchdog wrote:I got a red thumb yesterday for that.

Actually, aiming the poorest player was the best strategy. It was 3-3-3-2 at the table and the player with 2 points would play right after me. There was one card left on the deck and I was holding Princess and Baron. The player across from me had played a guard on me in the last turn naming the Princess and missed. I knew the poor player had a low card in the hand and I Baroned him, expecting the player across from me would play his card against the other player and not me again.

There was a convulsion on the table, started by the other two, because "that's not the spirit of the game". And, on a "you take that" rage, he played a prince on me and I lost. And earned a red thumb, even after explaining the reasons.

I'm sorry, but you guys just take this too damn seriously. It's also amazing how seriously someone would take Love Letter of all things. The game restrictions should be for hard-core-too-serious players vs casual players, cause I don't ever want to come up against this stuff.

(3-3-3-2 ... 1 point behind is a "poor player"? )

MrWatchdog wrote:I got a red thumb yesterday for that.

Actually, aiming the poorest player was the best strategy. It was 3-3-3-2 at the table and the player with 2 points would play right after me. There was one card left on the deck and I was holding Princess and Baron. The player across from me had played a guard on me in the last turn naming the Princess and missed. I knew the poor player had a low card in the hand and I Baroned him, expecting the player across from me would play his card against the other player and not me again.

There was a convulsion on the table, started by the other two, because "that's not the spirit of the game". And, on a "you take that" rage, he played a prince on me and I lost. And earned a red thumb, even after explaining the reasons.

I wouldn't consider this situation relevant at all as not trying to win. Given you are 1 point from winning any play you make to improve your chances in that round is trying to win.

Lillian, I agree with most of what you said, Love Letter certainly shouldn't be taken seriously! I will say though that Love Letter is a game where you are never out of the running for 1st place which is very different from most board games.

MrWatchdog wrote:

Shaq Jenkins wrote:We have completely different perspectives on this issue because I play to win, not to settle for 2nd or 3rd place. That's my philosophy in life - I'm not okay with being just good enough, as I want to be the best.

Well, the best player may not be the one who tries to win every single game, but the one who is more regular and are on top-2 more often.

Shaq Jenkins wrote:Furthermore, in Love Letter, by targeting the person who's leading, the other players now have a better chance at winning. I played a game recently where the score was 3-3-2-1, and the person with only 1 round win actually won the entire game because he didn't settle for gaining anything less than first place. Love Letter is such a unpredictable game - the person who's winning might have 2 or 3 rounds of terrible cards, so why concede and assume that they'll come in first place, anyway? Why make their win easier for them by not challenging them?

He didn't win because he was "seeking anything less than the first place". He won because he was never the primary target.

Considering that you weren't at the table, I think I'm better qualified to assess why this person won.

sprockitz wrote:Lillian, I agree with most of what you said, Love Letter certainly shouldn't be taken seriously! I will say though that Love Letter is a game where you are never out of the running for 1st place which is very different from most board games.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make!

I also want to emphasize, once again, that Love Letter is a LUCK BASED game, and because of that, it's possible that your opponents, even the one who's leading, will have a couple rounds of terrible cards. Why give up and assume you know who the winner is already? Why assume that there's no chance you can come in first place? That's a defeatist attitude that absolutely makes no sense to me when it comes to this game. This is not Puerto Rico or Madeira, where it may be impossible to stop someone from winning and playing for second or third makes sense.

Anyway, I think I'm done playing Love Letter on BGA because ELO ruins the experience. I really wish the mods would change the settings so that Love Letter is played with ELO off and no rankings.

Well, this is easy to see. You all have played LL quite a few times, right? How often do your tables end up in a big tie 3-3-3-3? First time it's like "ohhhh". But then you see it happens very often.

This happens because players will always target the leaders and will very often give the win to the player with less points in the round.

sprockitz wrote:I wouldn't consider this situation relevant at all as not trying to win. Given you are 1 point from winning any play you make to improve your chances in that round is trying to win.

When the discussion started at the table, I was still holding my card. So I couldn't just sit silently, because I'd be certainly attacked, and I couldn't say "this raises my chances of you not attacking me". So I said "this wasn't random, I still get elo if somebody ends with less points, and I lose if everybody gets in a tie on second place". Which wasn't a lie, but wasn't the main reason.

Then the "poor" player went "so you're sacrificing my elo for you benefit?" Hahahahahahaha come on. How do you respond to that? It's like he sees me as some sort of psycho... But that is exactly what everybody at the table was doing. Raising their elo at the expense of others'.

With the existing ELO system, Love Letter is probably played best with ELO off (though part of the fun of BGA is having the ELO on).

As I mentioned in earlier posts, I think a change to the ELO system would address the problem. Something simple such as the following:

In 3+ player games, whoever wins gets credit for winning. All other players get credit for LOSING to the player who placed first (yes, even 2nd), but get credit for beating all players below them based on the sum of their ELOS divided by theirs divided by a factor such as 5.

In this way first place is all the marbles. 2nd place is minus the normal points for losing to first plus the sum of ELO of 3rd/4th/5th/etc divided by 2nd place ELO divided by 5 (doesn't have to be 5, but should be noticeably less than the full value it is now).

This promotes play to win playing but still gives advantages to players finishing above others since all only get credit for ONE LOSS (just to first place) and get a FRACTION of each win (since they did not win).

I agree your system would be better than current one. Now for 4p game every player gets 2/3 of win/loss against each other. The full formula is more difficult.
viewtopic.php?p=31671#p31671