Suiciding - Sportsmanship vs. Strategy

[knowman]

I've read through most of the posts on suiciding and have seen more than few differing opinions, but I didn't see any that specifically addressed the topics of either a retributive strategy or a "lose as few points as possible" strategy.

I guess my own confusion comes from trying to understand what you're "supposed" to do when you reach the point where you're obviously not going to win a game. Is there any such guideline or community standard in that regard?

If another player breaks a bonus in a way that is going to give a third player a significant advantage, am I really supposed to just ignore that attack just happened and concentrate on the largest player?

Points question - the CC site is based on points, not just a W-L record. So is trying to manipulate a game where you're going to lose to end so you lose the fewest points possible poor sportsmanship?

[Dukasaur]

If I understand you correctly you mean something like:
You're the last 3 standing in a terminator game. One of your opponents is a colonel and the other is a private. You will obviously lose fewer points if you get the colonel to kill you rather than the private.

If I understand you correctly, then i would say yes: Deliberately manipulating the situation so that the colonel kills you rather than the private is poor sportsmanship. The private has worked his ass off to improve his skill to the point where he's on an equal footing with the colonel; screwing it up for him just to save yourself 15 points or whatever is really sleazy.

That being said, I do not think that suiciding is always poor sportsmanship. Retributive suicide, where someone has deliberately screwed you and you're just repaying the favour, is legitimate. It's just a form of Mutual Assured Destruction on a small scale, and one of the basic tools of playing this game.

[knowman]

You summarized my question correctly. Although to be clear it would only be in situations where I didn't have any chance of victory.

Personally, I tend to favor retribution over saving a few points any day, but I chalk that up to a character trait/flaw. But I don't really have a problem with someone beating me as much as someone attacking smaller players in ways that aren't going to help them (like taking away a bonus when there is a dominating player in a Standard game, where there is no second place). So it's really retribution vs/ stupidity.

If you think it's poor sportsmanship to try and ensure you're taken out in a way that will lose the fewest points, would you also say it's poor sportsmanship to target players who are going to garner you the most points in a Terminator game first?

[SirSebstar]

Just FYI, the top players never ever consider a position to be always lost. Hell I even won a game, flat rate where i was reduced to 1 army on 1 country, and i came back. mainly because nobody wanted to spare the armies to kill me in the end, and were busy with eachother.
So always play as if you have a shot. Also 2 weaker players together can usually kill a stronger player.
reading your post, i can see why players might want to foe suiciders though.. we all want a shot at the prize, and you killing me for no reason and with no shot at winning yourslef, wel that would suck for the both of us.

[KoE_Sirius]

I think you need to cover over the ranks when you play.Admitting defeat is never an option.Rank means very little and the points mean even less.These factors are all relative, they come and go.You can turn a game around from 1 territory if you are patient and resourceful.

Play to win every game.

[knowman]

Admitting defeat is never an option.

An excellent sentiment, but not particular practical, especially in what amounts to an online board game. And the fact that the "Scoreboard" is based on points, not whether you win or lose.

Rank means very little and the points mean even less.

Then why have points or ranks at all? Why not just have a win-loss ratio?

And what about Terminator games?

I understand the idea of always trying to win a game you're playing - that makes sense when you're playing a one-off. But it seems to me that the way the site is set up, the point is to maximize your overall points, a goal which sometimes could be better server by taking out another player as opposed to trying to win the overall game.

[dr.lucas]

There are also times when suicidal game play will help a person advance in a tournament. One that I ran had the winner of the tournament suicide in two of the final games so that they would end up winning the tournament.

It is a valid strategy in many cases but to do it just for points isn't a good enough reason for me. As with many things in life, it's never black and white

[jrh_cardinal]

[quote="knowman]Then why have points or ranks at all? Why not just have a win-loss ratio?[/quote]
because, winning 20% of 8 man games is a heck of a lot harder than winning 40% of 1v1/team games, but just showing win-loss, 40% looks a lot better, so a straight win-loss ration doesn't work with the multiple, very different game types on a site like this

[KoE_Sirius]

1.Points are not distributed evenly.If points mean anything to you.You'd learn a map so well that you'll be able to win at least 50% of your games.Then you'll only play higher ranks then yourself when those games come up.
2.Once you hold a higher rank you'll never play games with lower ranks or you'll play in teams with like minded players who specialize in a particular game play or setting.This way you can maintain a highish rank.
The subject matter restricts these two methods of play,because you use the word "sportmanship".
Strategy?
Some would argue that suiciding which basically means "giving up".Is no strategy at .
Its simply giving up.

[Woodruff]

I've read through most of the posts on suiciding and have seen more than few differing opinions, but I didn't see any that specifically addressed the topics of either a retributive strategy or a "lose as few points as possible" strategy.

I guess my own confusion comes from trying to understand what you're "supposed" to do when you reach the point where you're obviously not going to win a game. Is there any such guideline or community standard in that regard?

If another player breaks a bonus in a way that is going to give a third player a significant advantage, am I really supposed to just ignore that attack just happened and concentrate on the largest player?

Points question - the CC site is based on points, not just a W-L record. So is trying to manipulate a game where you're going to lose to end so you lose the fewest points possible poor sportsmanship?

First of all, I don't believe in the "no win scenario"...I guess I'm a little like Captain Kirk in that regard. You can always "just build and build and pray everyone ignores you until it's too late". Players will whine about your doing so, but that's their problem.

Aside from that, if it applies to the situation, a retributive suicide is NOT necessarily poor sportsmanship. As someone else referenced...it's simply a form of Mutually Assured Destruction. It might be a tantrum in a sense, but not poor sportsmanship. Plus, it usually lowers your blood pressure just a tad...and you know it won't lower theirs. <evil smile>

[shocked439]

Emotion is part of the game. Points are meaningless to most of the higher ranking players on the site. If points mean that much to you than yes it is possible to manipulate a game towards the end so you don't lose as many. Trust me though where you at right now you will never lose that many points. When you lose 60 points in to one player it hurts a little but you move on and win 4 more to get those points back.

Win/Loss means absolutely nothing in this game go check the scoreboard and see how many in the top 100 are sub 30% winners.

Suiciding is an option and sometimes it works out in your favor and sometimes it doesn't. Much like poker you gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em. Don't ever count yourself out though I bet everyone that has posted in here has an amazing comeback story of their own.

Trust yourself, and trust your instincts if you've justified a move to yourself as the most rational thing to do in any turn than you have no reason to question the actions that you take. And who cares if someone determines your move to be poor sportsmanship. I recently won a game because i stranded my opponent in the antennas on woodboro, i didn't want to wast the troop killing them so I moved on a to a non killer neutral and let them kill them self when their next turn started. Poor sportsmanship? no smart play others might disagree.

most importantly have fun

[Sey69]

I am here to meet strange, unusual, new people and kill them in a friendly board game. Whatever I have to do (within the rules) to have fun doing it, rest assured, it WILL be done.

If that means venting by suiciding, so be it. I've been told by my psychiatrist that it's not good to keep those feelings all bottled up inside myself

"I'm here for a good time, not a long time."

[Metsfanmax]

Just FYI, the top players never ever consider a position to be always lost. Hell I even won a game, flat rate where i was reduced to 1 army on 1 country, and i came back. mainly because nobody wanted to spare the armies to kill me in the end, and were busy with eachother.
So always play as if you have a shot. Also 2 weaker players together can usually kill a stronger player.

Statistically, this is a poor strategy. Only once in a great many games will the build-from-nothing strategy actually win you the game. Given that, it's a better play (if you care about your points) to guarantee minimal loss in the game rather than attempt maximal gain.

Regarding the OP: naturally it's not bad sportsmanship to play for points if your position is clearly unwinnable, but as Seb's post (and others) indicates, there is great disagreement about what exactly constitutes an unwinnable game (hence the strife).

[tec805]

Rank means very little and the points mean even less.

Says the guy with his highest rank and points in his sig

[SirSebstar]

Just FYI, the top players never ever consider a position to be always lost. Hell I even won a game, flat rate where i was reduced to 1 army on 1 country, and i came back. mainly because nobody wanted to spare the armies to kill me in the end, and were busy with eachother.
So always play as if you have a shot. Also 2 weaker players together can usually kill a stronger player.

Statistically, this is a poor strategy. Only once in a great many games will the build-from-nothing strategy actually win you the game. Given that, it's a better play (if you care about your points) to guarantee minimal loss in the game rather than attempt maximal gain.

Regarding the OP: naturally it's not bad sportsmanship to play for points if your position is clearly unwinnable, but as Seb's post (and others) indicates, there is great disagreement about what exactly constitutes an unwinnable game (hence the strife).

statisticly you are wrong. conseding a game and trying to win one yield differend numbers in that if you do not try you always win 0, while any win you get is a true gain in points, balance and moral epic win feeling.. but the likelyhood of winning a lost game, yes most games are simply lost.. dont look back, look forward...