SpielByWeb

[nunocordeiro]

Is it ok to make an in-game agreement when it clearly benefits both players?

I mean, when you have one less brick than the other player and, on the last round of a kingdom, you receive one more gift from amun-re, could you both agree not to waste all your gift on bricks and instead tie at most bricks? (Which you would anyway!)
[ edit: i.e. Player A gets 1 brick + 2 cards and Player B gets 2 cards, instead of Player A gets 3 bricks and player B gets 2 bricks - same outcome except both players get two more cards]

I found no such rules anywhere and I'd like to know if it's written or if there is some kind of agreement amongst players here. I'm sorry if this has been discussed before but I'm new here =$.

[rseulow]

There's no rule against making such a deal, and some player do it all the time - especially in ftf play.

Personally, I don't care much for that sort of thing. Mulitplayer games can generate bad feelings if a player feels two others are "ganging up" on him/her. I will live longer without that kind of thing in my life.

[stargate]

I agree with rseulow

plus those kind of deals will give you a BAD reputation
and you might get 15 seconds / posts of infamy in the forum

[freduk]

How would you feel if you were Player C?
How would you feel if you were Player A, then Player B broke the agreement and took 1 brick and 1 card?
What would you do if you were Player B and breaking the agreement might give you the game? (ie, sole rights to the 5 point bonus, plus the chance to pick up a game-winning card, or extra money from one more farmer for more bonus points)

Best not to go there.

[ahauwi1]

I'd not be interested in that sort of game, but if all players agreed to that type of play before joining, it'd be fine with me. Probably that can be conveyed in the comment field when creating the game, where people request a # of turns per day or time zone or whatnot.

[nunocordeiro]

ok... 4 opinions agains so far... I guess that will probably be enough. Unless suddenly many more people disagree.

Can't say I agree with freduk. If I'm constantly player C and I anticipate the possibility that both players will realize the value in sharing the bonus when it is clearly the best option (it is not a common situation). Since it IS the logical thing for both, I suppose that as player C I must anticipate it.
When I'm player A and the agreement is broken (it has happened in Risk with family) I get pissed... I wait for a long time... and after 5 years, during a friendly game @ Christmas I backstab the person that did that to me... it's like real life.... allies you gain and you loose; foes you accumulate).
As for the third option, as player B I either take the deal or I don't. I would never backstab player A. I would have to calculate what the extra resources would mean for player A and myself and act accordingly. In most situations that would mean accepting the deal.

On the other hand, rseulow's point was quite good and, since I'm playing only for fun (although it IS more fun when you win ) I'll live by it.

I must say I've done this sort of agreement IRL on this and in other games (sometimes they are supported in the rules). Things like threatening to use a soldier if an opponent doesn't trade you what you need in Catan are pretty common and I believe make the game more fun even though your opponent may not like to be in that position (they will love it even more when the tables turn though).

Still, in games theory a prisoner's dilemma has been discussed exhaustively and it has been deemed that the most efficient play is always in the best diagonal which means that if you can agree with the other player, it is mostly beneficial to do so.

[bearsfan]

I wouldn't have a problem with a player offering or accepting such an agreement as long as the negotiations take place in the in-game messages, so everyone can see what is going on. I don't believe there is any written rule in Amun-Re against negotiation. It might be fun to watch someone else get backstabbed after making such an agreement (though I would never backstab anyone--really--you can trust me on that).

[Rebelslayer]

In Santiago where the rules specifically encourage it fine. In everything else ... no! If the two players do it without any discussion fine, but no planned pincer moves please!

[nunocordeiro]

While playing Babel it occurred to me... if the game creators did not want people to make the agreements they has a simple solution: in a tie give neither player the bonus!
If a choice was made to give both players the bonus then it makes sense to assume that players can agree to share the bonus when it serves both players interest....
Is my thought process broken?

[Rebelslayer]

But agreements move a game from skill and luck to if you know more people or are able to present your case better etc etc.

In FtF games like Settlers of Catan my wife tells me I offer so many trade deals that all just slightly benefit me (afterall, why else do a trade) that I get an unfair advantage.

To my way of thinking, making deals would overall make playing on this site much less fun, even though almost every game with more than 2 players can be affected by them and in some games (like Settlers of Catan) deals improve the gameplay. In FtF games there is someone else to say if the deal is fair for a new player, or to pipe up in a timely fashion with a counter deal. Here if I made a deal (particularly with the new feature that allows you to play games without going to the your games page and seeing that there are messages in one of your games), you may know nothing about it and therefore have no option to make a counter deal or tell the other player how much better it is for me than for him, before he accepts and does it.

[toutoune]

I am off topic but just a question:

in case of tie on a sacrifice, what is the tie breaker to allow the 3/2/1 items?

[Gaditus]

It is the order that you played in the round. The one who bought resources earlier/earliest gets more/most rewards. It is easy to see as it is in top to bottom order in the area showing players score, gold etc.