People who leave 2s and 3s in Escalating

[72o]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.

Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.

[Metsfanmax]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.

Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.

Well, I kind of have to agree with him. I think people just assume that it's in your best interests to give other players card spots. I don't think it's been demonstrably proven that this actually helps you. This isn't something that can be answered by logic, it's something that can be answered by empirics.

[72o]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.

Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.

Well, I kind of have to agree with him. I think people just assume that it's in your best interests to give other players card spots. I don't think it's been demonstrably proven that this actually helps you. This isn't something that can be answered by logic, it's something that can be answered by empirics.

Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.

[docstretch]

Where your strategy works for you, it doesn't make it the master strategy that all should follow or get off the site. If we all played the same, would it be any fun? Just play the game and have fun.

[72o]

Where your strategy works for you, it doesn't make it the master strategy that all should follow or get off the site. If we all played the same, would it be any fun? Just play the game and have fun.

Well, there's a reason it's the strategy taught by the Society of Cooks. Actually the best escalating games are the ones where everyone plays this strategy, as they are adept at identifying opponents' opportunities and blocking them. The worst ones are the ones where a noob cashes for 15 and crashes a 12 stack to take South America for a +2 bonus, because it leaves the person whose stack he crashed with a low troop count, and leaves the next person to play with an easy elimination.

[Metsfanmax]

Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.

That's not real evidence. First, there are more things that affect escalating strategy than just how you deal with leaving open card spots, and if you're better than him at those other things that would affect the outcome. Second, there's a large element of luck in this game, and that would only tend to wash out over many games, so if you or your opponent haven't actually played that many 6+ player escalating games, it's hard to draw a conclusion from it. The bottom line is that you need more than a two person sample to answer this question.

[72o]

Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.

That's not real evidence. First, there are more things that affect escalating strategy than just how you deal with leaving open card spots, and if you're better than him at those other things that would affect the outcome. Second, there's a large element of luck in this game, and that would only tend to wash out over many games, so if you or your opponent haven't actually played that many 6+ player escalating games, it's hard to draw a conclusion from it. The bottom line is that you need more than a two person sample to answer this question.

Ok.

Edgron is an SoC teacher, so I know he plays "correctly". He is 909 for 3863 for +4450 points. He's probably just really lucky.

Actually the whole SoC academy squad must just be really lucky.

dhallmeyer is 519 for 2070, for +5553.
bruceswar is 775 for 2786, for +9311.

Please provide examples for people who leave 2s and 3s all over the board and their maprank in 6, 7, and 8 player escalators for comparison.

[BigBallinStalin]

@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

[Funkyterrance]

@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.

[Metsfanmax]

@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.

Right. I don't necessarily doubt the method, I'm just being properly skeptical since all we have is fairly anecdotal evidence at this point.

As I pointed out, it is hard to properly extricate the main variable here from other relevant factors, such as inherent skill of the player. Still, I imagine that if you found some equally high rated players who used this method and lost their 6-8 player games most of the time, that would be better proof. But the fact that no one at high levels uses the method would not necessarily be proof, even if it's strong circumstantial evidence.

[BigBallinStalin]

@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.

Right. I don't necessarily doubt the method, I'm just being properly skeptical since all we have is fairly anecdotal evidence at this point.

As I pointed out, it is hard to properly extricate the main variable here from other relevant factors, such as inherent skill of the player. Still, I imagine that if you found some equally high rated players who used this method and lost their 6-8 player games most of the time, that would be better proof. But the fact that no one at high levels uses the method would not necessarily be proof, even if it's strong circumstantial evidence.

Since the costs of collecting this data would likely fail to offset the benefits, then the only way we can ascertain the truth is to...

hold a poll!!!

for the truth is decided by the majority!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=180768&start=0

[IR1SH ACE]

I agree....people who leave 2's and 3's in esc games are annoyin....

so u can add to ur date here is my map rank for 6,7 and 8 player esc games

148 wins from 377 games...39% win ratio and +1113 points....

now I have played in two games recently with a guy who has to leave 3/4 stacks every time he takes a region and those not want to share a card spot....one of these games is still ongoing............Game 11820335....player.....LLC22

now his maprank is.........113 wins from 474 games...24% win ratio and +1620 points

so i suppose it sort of works for him but is really annoyin to the regular flow of the game when everyone plays the stack and share way...

all i know is i would rather play with 6,7 or 8 players doing it this way....

[72o]

Thanks for the additional data. It seems at least one person is successful leaving 2s and 3s and not sharing card spots.

[DoomYoshi]

I actually experimented with this in I Walk Alone. Brandoncfi played 170ish 1v1s in a row. Every game, I left a 2 on every pile. He beat me by like 2 or 3 games. So, as a base strategy, it is only slightly worse. Obviously, strategies are situational though, but for all you anti-2, 3ers, there isn't too much validity.

[Dukasaur]

I actually experimented with this in I Walk Alone. Brandoncfi played 170ish 1v1s in a row. Every game, I left a 2 on every pile. He beat me by like 2 or 3 games. So, as a base strategy, it is only slightly worse. Obviously, strategies are situational though, but for all you anti-2, 3ers, there isn't too much validity.

1v1 strategy is a different kettle of fish entirely. So is 3- and 4- player.

What is being debated here is strategy for 5 or more players.

In 1v1 there is no point helping your opponent to get cards, so definitely you want to deny him carding opportunities when possible. In games with 5 or more players, however, the key is helping player B accumulate as many cards as possible, so that you can later take them and use them to your own benefit in fighting players C, D, and E. Since you don't know the identities of B, C, D, and E at the beginning, you want to help all the players accumulate cards.