The politics of losing
 

I'm in different games and have noticed that different players seem to have different notions about acceptable behavior when losing. So I'm curious if there is a general consensus about a few issues on the board.

Assume a 7-8 person game....

Obviously the big one, you've lost, how soon do you go AI? Do you play out the string (which can mean a commitment of months) Do you wait till your capitol is lost? Do you congratulate the other nations, go AI and look for another game? At the start you have messed up your pretender creation and you are stuck between two high powered nations and you get hit with some terrible events in the first 5 turns. ....do you go AI?

You are in a war with nation A and you consider the odds to be reasonably matched. You have a neighbor, nation B, that has a long border with nation A, but for whatever reason cannot go to war with A even though they may be supporting you with gems, gold and forging. Is it reasonable to collude with nation B by having them take some of your provinces so that nation A is funneled over a specific path?

In a 7-8 person game....you are pretty sure that you are going to come in third with nation 1 and nation 2 in front of you. If you throw your support to nation 2, they will likely win. If you sit on your hands, you believe 1 has it sewn up. Under what circumstances would you play the kingmaker and support nation 2?

Do your feelings change if you have been at war with nation 2 for most of the game and their success has likely kept you from the top perch? How about if you have been at war with nation 1?

Re: The politics of losing
 

Regarding AI, the answer is actually pretty simple.
Just don't do it.
Unless you have some serious RL issues and you absolutely cannot find a sub, of course.
Regarding nations 1 and 2: if you're absolutely sure you cannot win no matter what you do, AND have no agreements with them, AND have no other reason to support particular side, use a 3-sided coin (help 1, help 2, turtle). Otherwise, do everything you can to win. Really simple :)

Re: The politics of losing
 

1. going AI is bad. only exception would be if you've lost your capital and all other forts and can no longer recruit anything and are just waiting for others to finish you off. even than I'd just stick until the end(like I'm currently doing in 1 game) as the turns no longer take time, and going AI is just bad. other than the exception, you're describing a playable situation, whether you think you have a chance or not at this stage is completely irrelevant. you should keep on playing because you're not dead yet and you can still play. if you feel that you're just playing too poorly and believe you can't win because of that than finding a sub(a more experienced player than yourself) to carry on instead of yourself, is an acceptable course of action(as long as the game is not a "newbie only" or something).

2. I really don't understand this example. I assume "whatever reason" is binding diplomatic agreements, otherwise territorial exchange would change the picture and open possibilities for nations A and B to wage war against each other. even than, with spells like teleport, cloud trapeze, gateway, etc, sneaky troops and commanders, flying troops and commanders, etc I don't see how giving up a province or 2 will "funnel" a nation to go into a "kill zone". generally giving up territory without a fight is a bad deal, unless you're cooperating with the nation you're freely giving up territory too, and you do it so said nation can help you against this common enemy.

3. as for playing Kingmaker or not. there is no simple answer here. on the 1 hand you can go with the "do not interfere" philosophy if you feel that no matter what you do, you can no longer win yourself, however your interference towards 1 of the sides will severely change the balance of the game. on the other hand you should look at the game's history, previous diplomatic actions by both sides, were you in a war with any of the sides before, did any of them block you from achieving your goals, etc. this way you can decide which side you prefer to win, and help them. you can also use personal preferences, say if you like player A more than player B, etc. sure, it may be frowned upon for the sake of game balance, but it's only natural that people tend to support their friends over strangers...

Re: The politics of losing
 

Perhaps I'm a terrible person? But I have a very strong allegiance to those who have helped me at all/made NAPs with me etc...and a very strong aggressiveness toward those that have attacked me/hurt me in any way. I do a fairly decent job of keeping it within the bounds of the game, but, in this case, I would always help whichever side helped me more/attacked me less.

On the other hand, just do whatever is most challenging to see if you can. I mean, if the less-powerful nation can probably win with your help, then try to help in such a way that you become a lot stronger as well, and then try to beat that nation, too!:p

Re: The politics of losing
 

Play as if your nation's citizens are depending on you. Play as if you are truly worthy of wearing the mantle of pantokrator. Play as if you refuse to die. I don't see why anyone would have respect for people who join game after game and cheese out when things get tough... for people like that, who cares if they manage to scrap out a win from time to time when they're so blatantly going with the 'eve a broken clock is right twice a day' strategy.

Re: The politics of losing
 

In this forum the MP games are taken fairly seriously. The "try something, it goes bad, drop out" tendencies are considered to be all worked out before joining a serious MP game. On some forums they are even more serious about it and some its less but here its considered to be a commitment when you agree to play. Keep in mind that its not just you being affected. An AI player is a whole different factor than a human one. When you go AI, the entire game is changed. A good player will completely redo their strategy. Many of the serious players will consider it to be a rude thing to have done to their game.

A more honorable option is to find a substitute. No matter how pissed you are, and how crappy you think your situation is, a sub can often be arranged. Brand new players will (or should) enjoy a chance to learn how to do MP turns, to see major armies doing battle, to see how an MP game looks in mid-game or late-game. Even if its just to die the honorable death, that can be instructive. I understand why YOU might not want to but they wont have that connection to the god you made and possibly lost. Give them a chance to slip into your spot, please.
:target:

--
Do not go quietly into the night
rage rage rage against the dying of the light - Dylan Thomas
What does that mean? It means dont be a putz and quit the
multiplayer game before all of your candles are snuffed.

Re: The politics of losing
 

It is only acceptable to go AI when your death is imminent and your armies are spent. ie, the AI would do just as well as a human player at playing the remaining turns (because there's nothing to do).

Re: The politics of losing
 

I'm totally against king-making just because you "want to see 'player A' win and not 'player B'". Everything you do should be in respect to yourself eventually winning, no matter how slim those odds might be. However, I think the odds are never quite as slim as they seem.

True, big empires can gain a lot of momentum in this game and it can often seem hopeless, but every turn has a good deal of luck involved and real cooperation between allies can be devastating.

So in your scenario, I would say try to affect a balance of power (support #2) until you can build yourself up enough or the two big dogs bleed each other dry.

Re: The politics of losing
 

You're absolutely wrong, there are definitely times you have no hope of winning. To pick an extreme example, you're dying to an opponent. Its sufficiently against you that there is no hope of recovery. (I can show you plenty of trn files that look like that, btw, so this definitely occurs). So what do you do? Clearly not play to win.

Myself, I play to spite the person killing me. I might die, but i'm going to do my damnedest to make sure they pay for it. And yes, that is definitely king-making (against your conqueror). But it also has a positive metagame impact for me - I'm a much less attractive target because people know I'm going to take a chunk of them with me and play it out till I'm out of effective things to do.

Re: The politics of losing
 

I follow this same philosophy. If you put forth the effort to eliminate me, I am going to put forth the effort to make sure you lose as well.

Re: The politics of losing
 

Some people are total strategists. They want the game to be decided by strategy only.

Some are total role-players and have just as much fun with diplomacy, intrigue, or a game that turns to vengence.

And most are probably somewhere in-between.

We have had games setup which purposely sought to lock the game more into one type or the other. And most games which were somewhere in-between.

So where are we at?
Be happy that the game so well allows for both. And create/join the games of the type you like.
And if unsure which is preferred in a game, just ask the person who created/running it.

Re: The politics of losing
 

If only people followed inhouse rules, or at least read them.

Re: The politics of losing
 

Squirrelloid, how can I be "absolutely wrong" when I haven't posted any absolutes? :)

First of all, I think its pretty obvious that there can be a point at which any game is unwinnable, anyone who has lost a game knows that. I take that for granted and don't think it needs to be restated. So no thanks on the trn files :)

But if you look at my post, you'll see that I basically emphasize two things:

1. people tend to underestimate their chances

2. I think people should always play to win on the macro level (big empires an such). --But let me just clarify, that if you're at the point of no return (ie, last provinces/cities being conquered by unstoppable opponent[s]), then yes you can't play to win...its impossible.

I also said to play to win "no matter how slim the odds," but there is a big difference between very slim odds of winning and zero odds.

I should point out that this is my style and I understand playing by other motivations.

There are perhaps fine lines between what is and isn't king-making at that unwinnable point of a losing game, like if you're talking about..say...giving away the chalice to your conuerer's rival when you're last province/fort is about to be taken...of course that situation is your call and I would totally do that. Sure, its not playing to win, exactly, so maybe that's technically kingmaking, but I would prefer to call it simple revenge or vengeful death throes :)

The sort of kingmaking I dislike is when someone who is a minor power decides to become a vassal (calling it an alliance) of the winning player, even when the rest of the players have banded up against him. I would bet we're in agreement on that.

Re: The politics of losing
 

Hmm... lets take a look.

Now, where's Waldo?

------------
And Nope. I have no problem with so-called 'vassalage'. Minor power want to throw in with the leading side? That's a triumph of diplomacy.

Yes, diplomacy is part of the game. If you do it well, people are more likely to stay allied with you even when you're winning, especially when they have no chance themselves. Neglect diplomacy at your peril.

And heck, any alliance against a leading player that will have few tangible benefits for you (and to be honest, most alliances against a leading player primarily benefit the second ranked player(s)) isn't really playing to win, its kingmaking for #2. If you believe anything else you're just deluding yourself. I'd certainly consider my diplomatic history with the likely beneficiaries of both sides and make my decision based on who played the diplomatic game better.

A realistic assessment of most games would likely show that 50% of players (or more!) are not in contention to win by turn 40-50. Many of those players likely control decently-sized territories.
-Luck is only a factor in any real sense between evenly matched opponents, and even then, its usually a rather small factor. Most opponents are not evenly matched.
-Player skill is a huge factor in nation performance, and its only rational to use conditioned expectations of victory chances based on demonstrated player skill.
-Overwhelming material advantages really are overwhelming. Only a gross imbalance in player skill can save a nation or set of nations with a large deficiency of material.

Re: The politics of losing
 

Hmm indeed, you may have me there, I should really re-read my posts. However, I'm not sure if "everything you do under specific conditions" is an absolute, the condition here being that you have slim odds of winning. Again, slim odds > zero odds. Whatever, I'll cop to that one if need be.

But I couldn't care less about how to phrase my sentiment, even if it is an absolute, I took the time to point out the obvious exceptions to you. It is starting a post with "you're absolutely wrong" that I disapprove of and was trying to make light of. Your call I guess...

Aaanyways, I myself wouldn't ban such vassalage-kingmaking from a game, players should have that choice, but I'm surprised that you hold such a move in high esteem. The "triumph" would be for the winner, not the kingmaker, who is the subject of this conversation.

So, yeah, if you can convince some chump (or chumpette) to help you conquer the world, that's a triumph for you....I kind of take that for granted though, just like diplomacy being "a part of the game" :)

More like, 50% or more have been eliminated or have a low chance of winning.

Again, you are restating the obvious; of course luck is a small factor (except when it isn't) but its a factor nonetheless.

Player skills matter? :doh:

Something that's overwhelming is actually overwhelming? Who's arguing with that?


Regardless, these are clear reasons why I would encourage smaller nations to pool their resources and fight the largest power. Of course, if in the end you don't win, you were just kingmaking for number 2, but at least you were trying to make yourself king.

EDIT: I do totally agree with the vengeance thing though, I would just wait until it was truly hopeless before I focused my strategy on revenge over winning (they often go hand-in-hand anyways).

Re: The politics of losing
 

Do what you feel like. It's just a game

Re: The politics of losing
 

Never unless nobody can profit from your going ai. Which means you may do that the turn before your castle is stormed, but there's little point to it at that time.
Going ai screws the game for everyone else, so it should never be done.

Totally acceptable for me.

I keep playing along the lines of what I did before. If I'm allied with either, I'll stick to it. If you can't support player 2 until he tips the balance and then backstab him to try to win yourself, then I'd just go with what I used to do or try to get a lot from player 1 so I can maybe get a chance of winning.
However, if I have a chance of changing the game balance, then player 1 should probably consider it and give me something in order not to lose. And 2 in order to win. If I'm in a king-making position, I should be able to bargain my way out of that position into a 'can win' position.
The only exception I can think of is certain uncommon victory conditions like cumulated VPs or such. I'd probably not intervene in these cases, unless I've been at war with one player in which case I'd stick with that war.

Re: The politics of losing
 

Well said, please disregard my previous posts, looking back over them, the arguments seem trite and unimportant, especially when confronted with this simple truth.

Re: The politics of losing
 

A couple of thoughts.

I do agree that going AI with any hope left is not a good idea.
I do agree that I usually try to spite the person who knocked me out by dragging them down as far as I can.
Playing to win is a good idea, but ...

...but suppose I run into a couple of really good players and with 5 players left, I'm probably running 4th or 5th. We dogpile on the guy we thought was the leader and....

#1 Eliminate the leader completely, and when he is completely finished off the map dogpile again with the former 3-4-5 against the former #2?

#2 Knock the leader down to 2-3 and rethink the dogpile?

#3 Knock him down to 4-5 and have him join in against the former #2?

I guess I'm curious if so many players "never" concede, then how do your games ever end? I don't mean that in an inflammatory way, I'm honestly curious. I'm at turn 90 in a game and if we consistently choose #2 or #3, I could see this game going 200+ turns.

Re: The politics of losing
 

I've got a game past turn 150. And it's a pretty long one and I wonder whether it'll ever finish.
I've seen several games where the balance of power is clearly in favor of one or two and the rest can't do anything like king-making. Those where several player are mostly equal in pwoer can indeed drag. That's why I personally favor smaller games now (4 players is great imo), or victory conditions like a deadline or 2/3rds of the provinces or some such which means that the game will eventually end.

Re: The politics of losing
 

I would also argue that smaller games give greater replayability as there will not always be an end game stage. The game might never get beyond mid game. The result is some nations which would never otherwise be taken, suddenly become powers, like TNN.

Re: The politics of losing
 

The multiplayer game I ran also had this issue, turn 11X, 3 players left. One looked like he was gonna win, got into a grueling fight with me, 3rd guy got bigger and bigger and was about to hop in and crush second guy, I could either turn on 3 with 2, and go back and forth and back and forth, since we were all just throwing around endgame stuff in a stalemating circle, or I could just do nothing, which I would probably have if We hadn't decided to end it by consent, I mean theoretically any of us could have won but it could have taken another couple hundred turns. If you have the energy to stick out a back and forth stalemate, switching sides until you get a chance to strike, more power to ya, but once everybody gets into the super-end game and multiple people have fought each other and survived mostly intact, you have a problem. Because it might take a really god drat long time to decide a winner. It probably didn't help that 2 of the three were blood nations making use of vampires.

Re: The politics of losing
 

Really large games should probably not be played to decide a winner. Even if there is one, it causes arguments. Should someone be called a winner, and allowed into the Hall, if they won just by holding out longer than everyone else? Should they be able to win by turtling? By being able to stand more micromanagement than other people? Some say a win is a win, and others say it violates the concept of a strategy game.

On the other hand Ive hosted and played in many games that went over the 100 turn mark and I thought they were fun. And Im well known for loving really big maps (my site is about the only place to find some). It makes the devs sigh, but yes I like those games. Especially since it empowers some of my favorite races to use strategy and tactics that cant be used well in smaller games.

But I will concede that such games should probably not be played like usual games to see who is the winner. They should be played more just for the fun of a very different game :target:

Re: The politics of losing
 

Pretender Gods in the Arena at dawn...I do my killing before breakfast.

Re: The politics of losing
 

Ive seen that done. Basically its a one-turn game.
Thanks for reminding me of it

Re: The politics of losing
 

The more I play, the more I feel the sweet spot is to have games with 6-8 players. Most nations are viable, and you don't have the 150+ turn games. You also don't have terrible micro because at most you have 80-100 provinces.

Re: The politics of losing
 

An important point: When you start playing, you've probably mostly already lost the big war that is the focus of your game, just by joining it--because you probably have more than one opponent, so your chance of winning, if everybody has the same skill and starting nation strength, is 1/3 or less. Maybe a lot less! And the imbalances brought by skill and nation design probably aren't going to increase it past 1/2. If you have to win to have fun, then you have to focus on individual battles and lesser wars, not on the big war that determines whose pretender god is the real god. That war is generally not won, in multiplayer games.

I guess it comes down to roleplaying. What role should you play at the start of a game, when your chance of winning is say 1/8? People don't seem to talk about that much. But one doesn't have to try to win from the very start. Does everybody try to win from the start? If so, why? It seems delusional to play that role, without also consciously accepting that the role is generally a tragic one. If it's okay to give up on winning halfway through a game, and thereafter dedicate yourself to hurting or helping some other nation (or killing the world's population, or doing some other strange thing), then maybe it's okay to do that at the start. Why not do that at the start? Maybe it'd make more sense than trying to win from the start. And it'd be more consistent. You wouldn't have to pick out some arbitrary threshold at which a likely loss becomes a "certain" loss; you wouldn't have to venture into the absurdly complex and mostly undeveloped science of Dominions 3 statistics to (inaccurately, and without much hope of ever learning how inaccurately) determine the likelihood of your own loss. You'd start out with a goal, and you'd keep that goal to the end. You'd control your own fate, instead of letting yourself be pushed around by frustration or by some weird attachment to winning a game that is usually lost by almost everybody, almost certainly including you!

Re: The politics of losing
 

Some good points.
Altho I feel like mentioning that a specifically "New Players" game can work around the early gang-up thing by choice of map. One of the Arena maps, or a Maze map, or one of the Towers make pretty good choices for newbie games.