Don't be desperate

Play to win in the bigger picture.
  • 45 posts
  • Page 3 of 3
Matty wrote:
We'll have a friends and ignore list eventually, the latter will do what you want I guess.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Dracarys wrote:
aeronautic - Dec 27, 01:46 PM

In a Deathmatch, I recently tried to explain to Dracarys (2nd Lieutenant) why having 1 card in his pocket and going for my 2 cards to MAKE A SET, was a bad move and I got told to "Stop Crying" and a whole bunch of slander to follow, but the move should have been, stop and fortify not carry on and pray. His reasoning was that he checked if anyone had turned in a wild card and logic told him I had one. LMFAO. Game was lost for me and it took all his troops to kill me and left him a small cluster of 1's for his 3 CARDS to be taken!!
That pretty much made my mind up for me to leave! (only here to finish tourney and long term games as I am not a spoiler)
So to conclude, I meet more sub-humans than humans these days... no consequences

I'll start off by saying thanks for your service.

Though I question if you actually served because you're a stone cold liar. You just completely fabricated a story about me. Is that what you do? Come into forums and make up stories, try to embarrass me and not post a link? You want to say I suicide? Fine. You want to just lie about me? Negative.

 I don't usually go on the forums but I saw this and had to comment. You're a complete disgrace. You called me names, I tried to deflect the situation by stating that if you were the next player you would salivating and not crying. You then called me a horrible little erk
(Whatever that means)

Bottom line - you're a liar. Was a bad move? Probably. But don't come on here lying about Dracarys and try to say that I was slandering you. You'll know when I'm slandering you, ask most of the people on this site, I don't do it with any subtlety. You'll know, it'll be loud and clear. Ask DFerguson.

This was one of the few times in a game I backed down and didn't fight back, so see this post really pissed me off.

Completely full of crap. Liar. ( I did my best with no curses so this stays up and exposes this liar)

http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=game&sec=play&id=230130
The_Bishop wrote:
@Dracarys - Why you say Aeronautic is a liar?
Is it not true you made that crazy move which ruined the game?

Personally I have no salivation when someone gift me the game in such a way.
A ruined game is always bad, it doesn't matter if I win or lose.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
SpamFree wrote:
Having read through this discussion thus far I have a few semi-random thoughts:

I find myself in agreement with much of what bluebird005vis said in the beginning of this thread. Suffice to say that luck is a part of the game, and as such, there will always be players who believe they can beat the odds and as a situation appears more desperate the likelihood of such a move increases.

As far as online play being more or less civil than real world play, as in aeronautic's example of "consequences" being physically throwing the game board, I believe that aeronautic and I would NEVER be able to play a game in real life. Such childish behavior is exactly the reason I have not played Risk in real life for nearly 10 years (although I do have a possible game with colleagues tentatively planned for early next month). I abhor a sore loser and although I am far more tolerant of such temper tantrums in the virtual arena, such petulance in real life would void the possibility of any future game play (and likely most social activity) with myself and the offensive party.

I do, however, completely agree that a training game option, which would create a game devoid of points, would be an excellent addition. I'm unclear as to who would bestow an "approved player" award and what happens if play degenerates to a point that such an award is no longer reflective of current "correct" play? Can it be revoked? If so, by whom and under what criteria can it be revoked?

As far as bluebird005vis suggesting a mandatory "walk-through" before a new player can join a regular game, I can tell you that had this been the case when I joined, I would have NEVER played the first game here, and would also have warned anyone, who mentioned looking for an online Risk game, against ever coming here. This may be the sort of thing that many here would welcome.

There seems to be continual whining about "suiciders" or those whom certain players deem to be "suiciding" with regularity. I haven't played as many games a some of you but having played a fair number of games (1001 games to date) I can say that I believe I may have been in a MAXIMUM of 10 games in which a move was entirely what I would define as "suicidal". I would define an action as suicidal that meets 1 or more of the following conditions:
1. an action with 0% possibility of any non-losing outcome for the actor, for the purpose of ending the player's participation in the game

2. an act out of some perceived need for vengeance which is designed solely to doom both parties

3. an act which decimates the actor in an effort to hobble a given player or players for the advancement of another player

As far as the idea of "cheaters" in games, the only example that I can imagine are Secret Teams, of which I have experienced few, if any, that I can recall.


Both aeronautic and bluebird005vis bring up some very good points regarding what is considered the "right" style of play (SEE: Post#15and Post#16 especially).

I wholeheartedly agree with bluebird005vis regarding the varied definitions of a "ruined" game (SEE Post#16). For example, Thorpe wishes for a stalemate game, but I cannot imagine a less interesting match. The mere thought of a game so stalemated that an admin is contacted to end the game without a winner seems completely asinine to me. With regard to stalemates as a potential problem to be remedied, I, too, am intrigued by a capped troop count option. Also, I would propose a game creation option that limits the game to a given number of rounds, from the start, but as I have, thankfully, never had to endure a prolonged stalemated game, I have nothing of further value to add to this portion of the discussion.

 
I find amusement in the idea that advancing in rank (and to a hilarious degree, the possibility of entering the Dominator hunt) is seriously mentioned in this thread as a motivation for "cheating" or ruining any remotely significant number of games. In the games where less-than-ideal moves are attempted, my observation has been that the overwhelming majority of such instances are what Thorpe has called hail-Mary attempts to win or at least improve the actor's standing in the game, gambling against the odds, out of pure desperation, as has been mentioned.

I agree with Matty that the D12 system works, as is.

I anxiously await a Friends/Enemies list, especially if it makes sending invites easier. Though I think a "Friends" list, and to a much lesser degree, an "Enemies" list are good options that could be used as criteria to limit potential play with new, inexperienced, "bad" or otherwise "undesirable" players, I think this is an implementation that would ultimately destroy this site. It would further solidify the cliquish class structure that already insulates skilled players from others. In similar fashion to discussion forums in which a "General" board contains the riffraff while the elitist, high-brow crowd inhabit the more "refined", specific topic boards, largely spared mingling with the unwashed masses, such secluded confines that makes play with experienced players less and less likely for newcomers would eventually leave the vast majority of players floundering in a fetid cesspool of festering mediocrity, while the best players would obliviously play with themselves as membership dwindles to the point of the eventual demise of D12.




Thorpe wrote:
The reason the experienced players do not play as much live games is the influx of all the newbies and they joined here to get good games that challege their minds and not just to "play", did you notice those that are the experienced players are those that are doing things for this site?...So with-out them doing the action behind the site, we would not have a site at all. 
When you joined the same experienced players did not play...yet here you are. 
Did you see my pic? I do not have a high-brow and by the way the elitist, high-brow crowd inhabit the more "refined", specific topic boards, largely spared mingling with the unwashed masses is because that is what the staff is suppose to do, helps use to improve the site with these great ideas.

I remember when I played a game with you...you ruined the game, but now that you have played more games I see the improvement in your games...I should have waited to play you.

As for mandatory "walk-through" before a new player can join a regular game, I agree you should not have to go though that...and what about the older players that still ruin games...a walk-through for them?

We will see what happens after the card trade-in changes.

At this point I see no end to this topic.

Like I asked what do you define as a ruined game?
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
SpamFree wrote:
There are some more experienced/higher-ranking players that regularly play with new players, notably aeronautic, naathim, lifeinpixels, Dferguson, elysium5 and InigoMontoya among others but most do not.

While the excerpt Thorpe has graciously quoted may be a bit exaggerated in it's portrayal of the class divisions forming here, the divisions do exist and seem to be expanding. I LOL'ed when I read that this is somehow conducive to "good" ideas for the site.

Thorpe, had you waited to play against me, my game may not have improved to even the point it has to date and though it has supposedly improved, had I played more games, more often with great players early on, I could have learned enough to be among them by now.

suldam wrote:
Spammy - a well thought through reply.

Just to quickly add on to Spam's reply, whilst we (the community) are very appreciative of the unsung volunteers and admins, who are generally experienced players, the reality is that there is a growing divide in the D12 community. It is becoming partisan, one where the more experienced players rant about the newer, lesser experienced players and suggest higher walls in the form of "options" to keep the masses separated. Clear examples can even be found in this thread. (By the way, experience does not necessarily imply skill. Both are mutually exclusive but have been used interchangeably through out this thread and, in the larger, forum)

I will expound on this at a later time (rushing for new year's celebration) but putting it in simplistic form - the quality of players would improve if there are more mentors in the mix. Sure you will get childish behaviours and obnoxious replies by players (if I were to take a guess, it is highly probable that age group 10-19 would statistically be the largest group), but as a whole, the community intends to better itself. (Another distasteful attitude are grumpiness and self-righteousness, which, from observation, seems to be more dominant amongst the experienced and elite)

The friends and enemies list will be a welcomed option but isn't an absolute necessity. Let's try to grow as a cohesive and friendly community, rather than in self-absorbed groups. Some quick suggestions -

a. Run virtual tutorials for probabilistic scenarios in different modes (easier to programme than training modes)
b. More experienced players to play live games (you will be surprised how many people do observe and learn)
c. Be more pro-active in advertising the forum channels to improve on one's strategy (goes without saying, it means we will need to be more generous with our advice :))

side point, don't worry spam, you're already in the mix, maybe not points wise :)
elysium5 wrote:
The reason I play regularly is that someone needs to point out to newer players when they do things like ruin games so that they can become better players. One of the reasons you may not 'see' that many suicide moves, SpamFree, is that you play most of your games as FOW games. You can't tell just how bad some of the maves are because you can not see them.

To all who keep saying luck is part of the game, yes it is but it should not be used as a main strategy, which seems to be prevelant lately.
"Bad Deadpool... Good Deadpool!"
bluebird005vis wrote:
There is a fine ballance between being a mentor and indulging "bad players".
You should allways try and keep an open mind when you think another player has made a bad move.
One of the 1st games I played on this site I was accussed by 1 of the "honored players" namely 1771 of being a complete idiot a fool and lots of other colorfull names because in his mind I played in a completely unacceptable way.
This was a fog game and as such I was trapped in africa and from his perspective I played like a complete newbie.
But from my perspective I made the best possible choice from a very limited list of possibilities.
Anyway, as the game progressed his insults became more extreme by every passing round.
It got to the point that he was claiming I could never win the game with the way I was playing.
Eventualy I did win the game and from a losing position.
The point I'm trying to make ( perhaps in a roundabout way, I'm slightly drunk, it's new years eve so sue me ;)is that it's easy to misunderstand other players motives and way of thinking.
Suicides in fog games are highly debatable and all players should be given the benefit of the doubt.
In other games I find the facts often speak for themselves.
If a player uses every available army he or she has to attack a players who is in no position to win it's a suicide pure and simple.
Unfortunatly the penalties on this site are much to small to counter the vindictive appeal of such actions.
A large number of games are affected by this and it really is 1 area of " ruined games " that can be avoided if you make the penalties a lot harsher.
All other areas of "ruined games" are a lot harder to avoid.
Young children are often unable to comprehend the faults in their logic.
Language barriers are often a problem, I played 1 game with a player that did no comprehend a word of english.
I made an offer to stop attacking each other because another player was getting way to dominant and he just replied ???
You could implement " sandbox modes", tutorials and different "trainingwheels" of every kind but you will still get players that go for broke.
In the end trying to guess who is most likely to do these "stupid moves" is also a part of winning the game ( trying to limit your own exposure to these kind of players is also a worthwhile tactic ).
As they say in poker; if you can't tell who's the fool around the table, it's probably you.
Happy new year everyone.
elysium5 wrote:
Well, of most of the experienced players I know, and particularily the staff, most who join the games with players of all levels of experience are very respectful when it comes to trying to explain aspects of the game to new players. I know this may not have always been the case in the past, and somtimes in the present, but it doesn't always get dealt with unless it is properly reported to a staff member and I believe everyone of the current staff members are doing everything they can on a daily basis to improve every aspect of the site.
"Bad Deadpool... Good Deadpool!"
darkdead wrote:
I don't have time to read all the messages but I'd like to refute Matty's first message.

First, there is a big mistake in the comparison between the prisoners dilema and the risk game. In your prisoners dilema, the total amount of money that is given depends on the decisions than the players make (if both players choose steals the total amount of money given is 0 and in the other case is 1 million).

However, in risk games, there is always a player who wins. Therefore,the total amount of money given is the same regardless of the players decisions.

Assuming that all the players have the same skill, if a player always plays to win (steals), he will win more or the same times than if he "shares" (the equality will hold only if all the rest of the players share, which is very unlikely).

Another questionable thing is what do you consider low chances of winning. For example, if I had only 1% chances of winning and 99% chances of giving the victory to other player, I wouldn't try to win. However, 30% chances of winning is quite big. For example, if it was a 4 same skill players game, before starting you expected only a 25% of chances of winning so 30% looks pretty good.

At last, the website rules state clear that a player always have to play to win, if you think that this is not the correct way to play, then change the rules. You say that playing to win (and probably giving the game to a player that is not ahead) is unfair to the player that is leading. Then, what about temporary alliances? Isn't that a similar thing? You are damaging the player that is in the lead in order to get the victory.

Ps. Sorry if my English is not clear, is not my main language.
Matty wrote:
darkdead - Dec 31, 06:07 PM
First, there is a big mistake in the comparison between the prisoners dilema and the risk game. In your prisoners dilema, the total amount of money that is given depends on the decisions than the players make (if both players choose steals the total amount of money given is 0 and in the other case is 1 million).

However, in risk games, there is always a player who wins. Therefore,the total amount of money given is the same regardless of the players decisions.

Assuming that all the players have the same skill, if a player always plays to win (steals), he will win more or the same times than if he "shares" (the equality will hold only if all the rest of the players share, which is very unlikely).
The two are not equal, as I also said. But there is a curious thing about both the prisoners dilemma and risk, that if you play more than just 1 game, the most logical (and often seen as 'the best';) move, does in fact not give the best results.

So lets say: two ppl are very good friends and always trust eachother - you and me - and we are going to play 10 games.
Now of course, I choose to share, as I trust you will do the same. You now however choose to steal, as you just said it was the 'play to win' method.
So, the first game you will win double, and I won't win anything.
As a result, in our next 9 games, I will always choose steal, as you clearly can't be trusted anymore.

So, how would you have won more, if you always would choose steal, or if you always would choose share? You tell me.


darkdead - Dec 31, 06:07 PM
Another questionable thing is what do you consider low chances of winning. For example, if I had only 1% chances of winning and 99% chances of giving the victory to other player, I wouldn't try to win. However, 30% chances of winning is quite big. For example, if it was a 4 same skill players game, before starting you expected only a 25% of chances of winning so 30% looks pretty good.
Ah, back to risk.

People will adapt to your strategy and as soon as they do you will not always get that nice 30% anymore.
Lets say in every 2 games you play, only in 1 of the 2 you will get the 30% - in the other game someone else attacks already before you get that chance.
So now suddenly the 30% is not looking that good anymore now is it?

That's why 30% is a low chance (the same reasoning holds for 60% chance, as you will likely not get that chance in 1 out of 2, but in 1 out of 4 games...)


darkdead - Dec 31, 06:07 PM
At last, the website rules state clear that a player always have to play to win, if you think that this is not the correct way to play, then change the rules. You say that playing to win (and probably giving the game to a player that is not ahead) is unfair to the player that is leading. Then, what about temporary alliances? Isn't that a similar thing? You are damaging the player that is in the lead in order to get the victory.
I agree about the rules - except for one small detail: it's complicated.
Rules should be kept simple, and this is quite a complicated detail, so it's left out.
(maybe it will get back in, but only as a very small sidenote. But that is difficult to word properly).


Also, if you temporarily team up, than you are not ruining the victory of the other player, you are mearly delaying him and balancing the game. The player can still win, but he will have to play a bit better.
(Of course, you shouldn't 'overbalance' him).
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Arne wrote:
I agree with bluebird005vis. "Don't ruin the game" seems to me the self-satisfied, complacent veteran's sense of entitlement. He thinks he has put all those armies down in what he supposes is a strategic disposition and gets all bent out of shape if someone dares attack him. If someone is losing and decides to either go for broke, or NOT but just to hunker down and try to survive, either way the arrogant veteran will say he has 'ruined the game', and of course, it always means ruined the game for him. No matter what the losing newer player does, or does not do, there is invariably an arrogant vet on hand who says he is ruining the game because the vet is no longer winning. "Ruining the game" is nothing but bullying at best, sore loserhood at worst.
Virtuosity98 wrote:
I don't know why anyone disagrees with Matty here. What he says in the first post makes absolute sense, and the general gameplay on this site would improve if everyone just followed his advice.
It is now Day 8. Please submit your Lynch vote, as well as any Role-specific Day actions you wish to perform (countdown).
Day Actions:
• #LYNCH [player], #NO LYNCH, #ABSTAIN in forum thread.
• Role-specific actions (via PM with V98).