Opinions on 3P Kingmaking

[kevinsbane]

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.

And if it is not the end of season? Does that change what you do? You can still materially affect your arena ranking/rating by choosing a king within any given arena game. This decision matrix is getting real complicated. End of game vs mid game? In game ranking vs arena ranking? End of arena season vs mid season? Arena rating vs arena ranking?

Your null action principle is not "right" nor is it "consistent". It certainly is too complicated to easily enforce.

You do you. Expecting other people to play the same as you is silly. Me? Damn the torpedoes, greenery away. After all, we are trying to terraform mars. Who to choose? Well, let's say that sometimes landing a Martian moon on my plants may have consequences a generation or three later.

[ChesterDeBester]

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.

It's pretty much 100v1 here. You gotta give credit to someone believing he is right despite everybody disagreeing :p

[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.

And if it is not the end of season? Does that change what you do? You can still materially affect your arena ranking/rating by choosing a king within any given arena game. This decision matrix is getting real complicated. End of game vs mid game? In game ranking vs arena ranking? End of arena season vs mid season? Arena rating vs arena ranking?

Your null action principle is not "right" nor is it "consistent". It certainly is too complicated to easily enforce.

You do you. Expecting other people to play the same as you is silly. Me? Damn the torpedoes, greenery away. After all, we are trying to terraform mars. Who to choose? Well, let's say that sometimes landing a Martian moon on my plants may have consequences a generation or three later.

It doesn't matter if it's not at end of the season or final day for your case in your post. Since you are not affecting your final arena standing. It's the same as during middle of the game, converting and playing your own game is not affecting the final placement. If it's not at the end of the season, your post was pointless, right?

[Jellby]

It sure does affect them. You just don't know yet...

[FrankJones]

The sum total of a player's actions throughout the game will affect the scoring in various categories.

The player who is in last place much of the game might invest heavily in plant production because, well, those are the cards that player holds. Additionally, that same player plays some animal cards and decreases 1st place player's plant production. Maybe he plays an asteroid card, again targeting player 1, since targeting the leader is usually the default.

Is this Kingmaking? Would this be objectionable?

This is just the nature of multiplayer games. Ignoring the entirety of the dozens of plays earlier in the game and focusing on a single isolated instance at game end is not an argument that holds up to scrutiny.

As Kevinsbane has pointed out: the TOS requires a player in a multiplayer game to make the "best play" in this situation. If the 3rd place player has 8 plants and one city that has only one spot for a greenery, and that spot is adjacent to one other player's greenery, let's examine what happens when that greenery is placed:


+2 points for player 3.
+1 point for player 2.
+0 points for player 1.

He gains against both players. That's a better play than declining the greenery.

And, good job by player 2 to blockade the only spot where player 2 could place the greenery.

Furthermore, if this somehow causes player 1 to lose by a point - who is to say that is the 1 point that caused the loss? Maybe player 1 made multiple mistakes or sub-optimal plays throughout the game.

[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.

[FrankJones]

So, your assessment is that the other 50 people in this thread arguing the counterpoint all need to play more 3p Arena to understand what you're saying?

Kevinsbane, who is the best Earth player on this site (Arena and non-arena), doesn't understand multi-player games or Arena well enough to understand your point?

Really?

[FrankJones]

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.

[kevinsbane]

So, your assessment is that the other 50 people in this thread arguing the counterpoint all need to play more 3p Arena to understand what you're saying?

Kevinsbane, who is the best Earth player on this site (Arena and non-arena), doesn't understand multi-player games or Arena well enough to understand your point?

Really?

Well, I'm certainly not the best TFM player at least I just know that different people play games for different reasons, and letting players play the way they want is probably best. Policing play at this level is just... Not fun.

[Suoivax]

amazing, 10 pages and still not acknowledging that a "null action" is still choosing who wins, i.e. kingmaking