SpielByWeb

[IBX]

Thought of this hypothetical at the end of one of my 5player tourney games.

Suppose you are in the 5 player final and the last player in a particular game. Players A, B, C and D have already moved. Player C is winning by a small margin over Player A in this game. You cannot catch Player C.

Player C already has one win in the tournament, as do you. You think you will likely win one more. You have enough money to purchase water and place it next to Player A's land to give Player A the win.

Is it a legitimate play to buy the water, give player A the win in the game. There is no good reason for doing it in this particular game, but in the context of the tournament it benefits you.


I'm not a fan of the concept, but I can see how it could happen.

[hagin]

This is generally why I dislike tournaments IRL. This is entirely valid tournament strategy. Normally when you play a game the only discriminator is "winning" vs "not winning". It doesn't matter how much you lose by (relatively or points wise).

In fact playing for position in a normal boardgame can lead to some undesirable outcomes, like throwing the game to person A instead of B because that way you come 3rd instead of 4th--an action I disapprove of IRL.

But as soon as you make the results of two different games relate to each other somehow or relative placings matter or points loss matter or a combination of all three it fundamentally changes how to play the game.

Some will argue that you should play each game individually to win and thats how I generally play but those players are ignoring the fact that the "goal" (in a strictly competitive sense) is to win the tournament, not the game, and thats two entirely different things.

[cpsof95]

I agree that tournament strategy may encourage some weird moves in one game, but I don't think you can prevent that. Unfortunately, this also gives an advantage to slow players who have more information about the results of other games.

[Kanga]

This is a tricky issue, that does arise often in Hacienda tournaments.

In a recent 4 player final with Djura and koinski and almondralf + ? in it, the first 3 games were won by Djura koinski and the other player. The 4th game was a close battle between koinski and almondralf, with Djura no chance to win. If almondralf won, then the final would go to a 5th game winner takes all, whereas if koinski won, he would win the tournament.

In the last round, Djura had enough money to play a water. What should she do? If she played it purely to ralf's advantage, he would win. Anything else and koinski would win. Djura and I talked about it for a while, no happy solution. She ended up playing a water that gave her 4 points and almondralf 5 (or something like that), and almondralf ended up losing by a point.

We weren't comfortable with making the best move from the tournament perspective, which would have given ralf more points and probably victory.

I suppose that is where I draw the line, and it's highly arbitrary; I'd be uncomfortable making a move purely to benefit another player.

In the current 4 player final, we've seen another situation pop up, which is why IBX has made this thread I guess. I have a big lead in one of the 4 finals. Because of that (I guess), in another final, IBX has made a move that has totally killed me (it's on a stupid map, only one access to markts, and IBX put a water sealing me out). Without the context of me winning another final it is a bad move, because it hurts IBX as well (no points for the water). Even in the context of me winning the other final, it is sacrificing his chances in that final to keep me out.

The worst thing about the above move is that it's still early in the game. I've now got nothing to do for the rest of the game.

[Dobinator]

I've played that map now twice, and I don't think it's awful, just different. Being water blocked is an omnipresent possibility, and you can actually plan accordingly in the middle to get money from harvesting tiles, or score from placing water or using the existing water, and sometimes try to make a run for markets when other people are distracted or broke.

I'm not sure it's a good choice for lots of people, or for a final, but it's an interesting map that calls for different strategies from the usual semi-boring 11 markets two spaces from land no water variety that make up most of the games.

Now, if you're looking for a really bad tournament map, there's always this one (one of mine):




Although I will say I've enjoyed every game I've played on it.

[smlait]

Good grief! Do the markets keep scoring as usual (12 pts for the 12th, 20 pts for the 20th, etc.)? That is one heck of a lot of markets!

On the tournament strategy note, I really don't pay attention to who's where in the standings (except, of course, to make sure I'm ahead of Linda - priorities, ya know! she keeps beating me in Reef Encounter; something must be done...) and I have to admit I'd be really annoyed if someone blocked me because of how another game in the tournament was going - mostly because it would never occur to me to do that to someone else.

So, if you do that, please don't tell me. I'll probably never figure it out on my own.

[t_o_m9]

I agree with small milk. How do you keep track of what tournament you are in and what the standings are?
I would say it depends on who you are playing. Against Kanga, Rebelslayer or any other Australian, you do whatever it takes to win or help another.

[joaotorres]

That could be "solved" if you could play the games anonymously. Until the end of the game you wouldn't know which player uses which color, so there would be no way that such thing could happen.

I guess it would be an easy implementation that could greatly benefit tournament gameplay.

[IBX]

[TMJJS]

I'm not smart enough or willing to do the work to make plays like this, but I have no problem if players do it.
It is a tournament and not a regular game so some things should be done differently - maybe that's why I don't win too many tournaments

I play blackjack and there are several moves in a tournament that you would never do in a regular game like double-down on a 16 on the last hand since that's the only way to win, but is a horrible risk according to the odds.

[SiddGames]

This topic comes up periodically on BGG, too.

[hagin]

[smlait]

[Kanga]

It's a very tricky question. IRL games it's very much up to an individual playing group to decide how they want to play.

My philosophy is that you are always trying to play in a manner that gives your best result. Obviously you want to win, and while you have a chance at winning you should always try for that. Like hagin, I would find it very hard to play in a format that encourage people playing for minor placings at the expense of winning.

One of the reasons I chose the points difference instead of 2nd/3rd/4th placings in the Hacienda tournaments was to encourage people to get as close to the winner, rather than focusing on minor placings.

If we go back to IBX's original question, the answer is something that probably requires group consensus. I would prefer to avoid blatant kingmaking plays as given as an example by IBX, as it penalises the players who win early finishing games. I suppose that means I'd prefer the games to be played in isolation (I quite like the anonymous names suggestion above).

[SiddGames]