Point Strategy Discussion

[uscg]

Also, it wasnt my thought to "throw the game" at the beginning of this game. I was the weakest player the whole game, and the game was in favor of moondog. he had more troops then me and Restrepo. Nothing against Moondog or Restrepo, but they could have taken me out earlier. the game was over in my opinion, which is the only one that counts, so i didnt feel like me attacking my 4 on moondogs 19 or whatever he had, was going to effect the outcome of the game. you get to the point of a game when you know it is over, i try to get teh game over. maybe i shouldn't have written it, but that was what i was thinking. so if i'm less than a man for helping another player finish the game quicker, fine with me. like i said before, foe me.

IMO, different players, different ways of playing. If it was the other way around, and Restrepo was winning, i would have attacked Moondog. Then it wouldn't have been about points, it would have been about getting the game over with.

 

[Restrepo]

the game was pretty much over, moondog had more armies than anyone,

What are you talking about uscg? the first time you wen't after me i had control of 50% of the map and me and moondog had the same amount of troops. You attacked me and broke all my bonus and then wrote in the comments that you did it to loose less points. and moondog just finished me of after that.

And if it was just 5 points less you would loose why did you attack me to save them?

 

[uscg]

What are you talking about uscg? the first time you wen't after me i had control of 50% of the map and me and moondog had the same amount of troops but i would get 10 more troops than him. You attacked me and broke all my bonus and moondog just finished me of after that.

You just said it... You were in control of 50% of the board and were getting more troops then him. so i attacked the person that was winning. that would be YOU.

 

[Restrepo]

I would have accepted that but you told me you attacked me to loose less points.

 

[mapguy]

Astute MajCom players are always going to be aware of their opponents' ranks, regardless of the situation. After all, a major is far more likely to behave predictably sensible than a cadet, right? And to be honest, targeting the lower-ranked player in a losing situation to minimize point loss is a better (and more rational) play than senselessly striking out at players who one has perceived to have picked on them. Being in a total no-win situation is tough, there's a few ways of going about things, and while I certainly wouldn't shake the hand of someone who made a play solely to minimize their point loss, I can see where they're coming from. As I've always said, this game is about process, not result. And if you know the result is going to be bad no matter what, there's an argument to be made for making that result as painless as possible.

IMHO, it's a pretty dick move, but that's easy for me to say because the whole point thing doesn't have the same allure for me as it once did. For a competitive person looking to, as it were, maintain some plate discipline, it's not the worst play in the world.

Right on bro,
I only take umbrage with one thing.-
I do not at all see it as being anything close to a "dick move". It IS a perfectly legitimate play in all aspects of the rules. I see it as way more cerebral than simply dishonoring a diplo agreement is. It actually requires thought and intelligence to be able to step back and really understand the "GAME" from a "Point Management" view.

Listen, I see it this way.-
If the game comes down to 3 players, and I am in a position with my head on the block, I still wield power (that some do not realize).
I am not going to win, but the choice of who does is in my hands. I will weigh things as I see fit. If I want to suicide on the guy that attacked me the most or whatever, well that is my power to do so. Or if I decide that loosing 30 points is better than loosing 60, again it is my decision to make.

 

[Chilly]

If the game comes down to 3 players, and I am in a position with my head on the block, I still wield power (that some do not realize).
I am not going to win, but the choice of who does is in my hands. I will weigh things as I see fit. If I want to suicide on the guy that attacked me the most or whatever, well that is my power to do so. Or if I decide that loosing 30 points is better than loosing 60, again it is my decision to make.

Or even better, if the implied threat that you might do one or the other buys you enough time to scrap back into the game....then even better. :wink:

 

[mapguy]

Or even better, if the implied threat that you might do one or the other buys you enough time to scrap back into the game....then even better. :wink:

exactly.

 

[KungFuDuet]

Indeed, this game is after all a strategy and war game. There is no point lashing out at somebody just because of their strategy of saving their points (It is a PART of THE GAME!!).
A strategy, it is.
I agree with saying that people are just wiser to have that part of the game in mind as well - and if you didn't think of that... too bad for you.
I would have done the same.

 

[Andraste]

Personally if I was about to go head to head with a higher ranked player, but was effectively knobbled by a third party about to exit the game, I would be highly irritated. However like most players I am very competative and understand that some players will exploit any advantage.Maybe a change in the scoring system to say 1 point for every player you defeat. So in an 8 player game you could gain 7 points. For every match you lose you only lose 1 point. This would make every game a standalone war rather than one more battle to climb the site leaderboard. Also where you about to lose you could bow out discreetly allowing other players to continue with their flawless strategy

 

[Restrepo]

I think this is a serius thing, people are exploiting the system. I can't believe that people destroy for other players just so they can stay high one the leaderboard. The Highranked people can try to defend it all they wan't but in the end of the day it's just a cowardly move and it's just destroying for the people looking to have fun on this site.

AND may i qoute the rules of MAJCOM under paraghraph 2 of the MAJCOM rules it is stated:

Do not be ‘that guy‘.
If you don’t know what ‘that guy‘ is, he is the person who ruins the fun and experience for others by being rude, abusive, overly annoying, or other forms of douchebaggery. Competitive banter in the game chat is fun, but ‘that guy‘ will take it too far, thowing in racial or derogatory comments. Moving up the scoreboard is everyones goal, but ‘that guy‘ will systematically try to work the angles and grey area of fair play. Lively forums are fun, but ‘that guy‘ often acts like an internet tough-guy and adds zero value to the discussion. Nobody likes ‘that guy‘.

You have just been served!

And educate your own "crime investigation" staff about your own policys. All I wan't is the best from the best nothing more nothing less

 

[mapguy]

Good lord Rest,
I can sure see that you have some strong feelings about this topic, and I see that others do as well, myself being one of them. I guess the only thing for me to do, is to try to clarify this side of the argument. Then, hopefully I can convince you to change your mind on this.

As I mentioned before, The rules for the game are as such, that a "Handicapping" system of scoring has been adopted. The thinking behind this is to thwart experienced players from farming newbies. But, it does have some consequences that are not readily apparent.
included are-

1) High ranked players are constantly targeted by newbs. (this occurs probably 10 X more often than it does the other way around).

2) Low ranks are targeted by experienced players toward the end of the game. (this occurs less often, as only the most experienced players are smart enough to employ good Point Management skills.

3) players are forced into a sort of class warfare. (High ranked players do not enjoy loosing an obscene amount of points when a low ranker wins. And, low ranked players love taking all of those points). those at the top, as a result, just circle the wagons and play among themselves.

From these three drawbacks, I do NOT see #2 as being the worst of the bunch. As a matter of fact, I do not see it as a bad thing at all. Just another part of the game, and squarely within the rules that a handicapping point system naturally creates .

So, if you would like to offer some sort of solution or something, then I would like to hear it. Otherwise, just file the info, and maybe even explore other ways as well, to manage your point count.

 

[giuppi]

My 2 cents here and I hope nobody gets offended. This is a game, with a purpose (winning games, advancing ranks) and rules which tell you what you can and can't do. Some rules are binding (you can't attack a non adjacent territory etc.), others are not (diplomatic treaties can be broken etc.).
A good player should know the rules and use them to maximize his/her own interest, knowing that opponents will do the same. So as long as there is no cheating involved, every move is fair and should be expected, also those that go against our own interests (duh).

That said, I personally would find MUCH MORE annoying if a player killed or weakened me (and him/herself) WITHOUT getting a personal advantage out of it. That would really piss me off (and it has happened). But as long as there is some kind of rational thinking behind it (ie maximizing their interest), I accept it.
In other words, opportunistic behaviors should be expected and should definitively not stir all this controversy.

 

[Badorties]

1) High ranked players are constantly targeted by newbs. (this occurs probably 10 X more often than it does the other way around).

2) Low ranks are targeted by experienced players toward the end of the game. (this occurs less often, as only the most experienced players are smart enough to employ good Point Management skills.

3) players are forced into a sort of class warfare. (High ranked players do not enjoy loosing an obscene amount of points when a low ranker wins. And, low ranked players love taking all of those points). those at the top, as a result, just circle the wagons and play among themselves.

Some flawed logic here.

1, High ranking players would be a target without a handicap. You have a choice to eliminate a noob or a major, if the points are the same you obviously take out the better player so they are no longer in the game. It's like that in all competitions. You put your best player against their best player. High ranking players just have to deal with being a target. If they deserve their rank, they will adapt and succeed.

3. high rankers only play themselves to preserve points? Doesn't make sense. Why try to preserve points by playing the best and most skilled out there. It's why its called noob-farming, not major-farming. Sure you lose less points, but your chances of winning go way down as well.

The handicapping system works very well, infact its hard to see how well it works because you only notice it when it doesn't work. I don't think that number 1 is any real issue at all.

 

[Incandenza]

2) Low ranks are targeted by experienced players toward the end of the game. (this occurs less often, as only the most experienced players are smart enough to employ good Point Management skills.

3) players are forced into a sort of class warfare. (High ranked players do not enjoy loosing an obscene amount of points when a low ranker wins. And, low ranked players love taking all of those points). those at the top, as a result, just circle the wagons and play among themselves.

Here's the thing, tho: I think "circling the wagons" and "point management" can be confused for "preferred game types" and "wanting to make sure one gets a good game." It's not always about points, even for people who have a decent amount of them. Sometimes I enjoy playing any and all comers in a big escalating singles game, but that can be damn frustrating, like when new players take out one of your stacks that you weren't even going to be using for a couple of rounds because they felt threatened. Sometimes it's nice to round up a few badasses and play some 2v2s and just whale on each other.

 

[uscg]

This is so stupid. please just delete my account. it wasn't a dick move, it was trying to save points, which is the point of the game. if it was to have fun, then there would be no scoreboard on this site. just because i play a different way of playing than some people on here, doesn't make me "that guy" or playing a "dick move". And if you look, i'm not even close to the top of the scoreboard. when you join a game with high rank or noobs, you have different plans of attack for each player. the game was over for me, and i did want i wanted to do. SO sorry someone got there feelings hurt because i didn't do what they were wishing i would do or i did something that was off the wall. i don't have mutiple accounts, i don't don't advantage of going AWOL for two turns and then come back to the game, i actually play respectfully to all players. i even told you why i did it, i was honest with you on that. Not all games that you play are going to be fun for all the other players. you have bad dice, everyone attacks you due to rank, noobs going AWOL, etc.

Abusive???? i can write all the dirty and bad words i want to right now. please check all my games, i don't think i ever written a curse word more than maybe a few times bitching about the mother f$uckin dice.

fuck you, i'm done. please delete me from here.

 

[Restrepo]

Abusive???? i can write all the dirty and bad words i want to right now. please check all my games, i don't think i ever written a curse word more than maybe a few times bitching about the mother f$uckin dice.

fuck you, i'm done. please delete me from here.

There are 100 different kinds of abuse and this time i was refering to abusing the system by finding gray areas in the definition of fair play. I wasn't targeting you specifically as a matter of fact I don't think you would never had been mentioned in this thread if you hadn't spoken up. And i don't hold a grudge at you for doing this becouse I realised that when the stakes are high wether they are points or prestige people are always going to try to find somekind of loophole.

Yhough it really angered me though that you chose to attack me to loose less points and then think that I would be fine with it and that i would just allow you to pull this cheap tricks on me. you had nothing to do with this thread, I was asking the community wether they think this strategy is legit even though their policy dictates otherwise.

And uscg I don't take kindly in you choice of words.

 

[uscg]

before you edited your first post, you said something to the effect of "going down like a man", that is attacking me personally. so yes, i did have to post something. i was replying to give them my side of the story. i had everything to do with this thread, since i am the one that you accused of cheating.

i will say that i am sorry for the whole abusive wording, that is how i took it. but this is not any type of loophole. just because i played a different way than you wanted me to, it does not mean that i was cheating. It wasnt a cheap trick to play so i lose as less points as possible. Once again, IMO the game was over and my opinion is the only one that counts since i am playing for me and me alone. that's awesome that you don't like the way i play, but it is not cheating.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

hey, uscg, don't leave because of one dispute. I'm sure that I've probably pissed off a few people, but I'm not going to leave the site because they got hurt feelings......

I've played against you at least a couple of times, you are a worthy opponent who plays well. I'd be glad to play against (or with!) you again. Stay...

 

[mapguy]

hey, uscg, don't leave because of one dispute. I'm sure that I've probably pissed off a few people, but I'm not going to leave the site because they got hurt feelings......

I've played against you at least a couple of times, you are a worthy opponent who plays well. I'd be glad to play against (or with!) you again. Stay...

Yeah, do NOT leave just because some inexperienced Girl Scout cries foul. Just kidding folks (sort of) lol.

But seriously, this whole debate is silly. I do not understand what it is Rest, that you think uscg should have done. Don't you understand that every game that comes down to the last three players, will have these same dynamics. Do you think that the game should just be called, and the strongest awarded the win ? I wish that you would try to see this as a game that is akin more to Chess, than Checkers. Then maybe you would see the multi-layers that are in play.

uscg has not wronged you friend, it is you that has wronged him. An apology for calling him a coward and such, would be appropriate here.

 

[Incandenza]

All right, everyone needs to take a deep breath. I understand that this can be a contentious issue, but let's please keep it civil.