Three-Player Stalemates

[fadedpsychosis]

I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*

I'll never invite you to my birthday party.

Dude! Just because we differ in playing risk doesn't mean we can't have fun at a par-tay! Assuming you're old enough to drink, I'll bring the booze! And bikes and guns if we're a-partying in the woods!! YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

last wedding I went to one of the groomsmen brought a 50cal and the bride's father set up a cinderblock and had me shoot at it after the party... so much fun

[Neoteny]

BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.

[AndyDufresne]

BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.

Nice, taking the game into your own hands. Best of luck!


--Andy

[Funkyterrance]

In real life when this happens I just fake a seizure on the table and problem solv-ed.

In real life this doesn't happen. I don't know anyone who's willing to count out 354 wooden blocks. And I'm not sure how many are included in the game, but usually when they start getting low people say, "we have to do more killing" and everyone agrees.

Wow, you must have a really old version, mines got little plastic Napoleonic war looking guys.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.

YES!

FINALLY.

A REVOLUTION IS ABOUT TO OCCUR FOR ALL THREE-PLAYER STALEMATES!

[AndyDufresne]

YES!

FINALLY.

A REVOLUTION IS ABOUT TO OCCUR FOR ALL THREE-PLAYER STALEMATES!

Winds of change a'coming, winds of change.


--Andy

[Neoteny]

No one has responded yet. They probably won't read it unless I post on their walls. I'll give them a few turns and then hit them up. Otherwise, come T-turn, I'll probably have a pissed off player on my hands.

[Funkyterrance]

If they can't be bothered to read chat they deserve whatever they get.

[Neoteny]

Well, it's a game, so they'll take what I give them and like it, but my goal is for this to be FUN FOR EVERYONE!

[AAFitz]

I dislike those kind of games, so I have a solution:

[In game chat:]

Whoever allies with me first, I will fight the enemy to the bitter end (thus winning the game for my ally).


*(note: I'd post a link to the game chat on both of their walls, with about a second in between each post.)

Would this actually constitute as "throwing the game" or "suiciding"?


I see it as honest diplomacy for ending the misery of pointless three-player stalemates.

throwing games was really never meant to mean you cant throw a game.

It was more about point dumping or repeat offenders. Certainly throwing lots of games would come under gross abuse, but it would be impossible to regulate the throwing of one game, because technically, that is just strategy, and taking away the right to throw a game, or suicide would ruin the game defacto.

The threat that a player might at some point get mad and suicide is real in every game, and one could say is the game itself in many cases.

Throwing an individual game would only really be wrong if it was done for reasons outside of the game, or retribution for another game. But proving that is pretty tough, not to say impossible.

[BigBallinStalin]

Welcome back, AAFitz!

[Funkyterrance]

I dislike those kind of games, so I have a solution:

[In game chat:]

Whoever allies with me first, I will fight the enemy to the bitter end (thus winning the game for my ally).


*(note: I'd post a link to the game chat on both of their walls, with about a second in between each post.)

Would this actually constitute as "throwing the game" or "suiciding"?


I see it as honest diplomacy for ending the misery of pointless three-player stalemates.

throwing games was really never meant to mean you cant throw a game.

It was more about point dumping or repeat offenders. Certainly throwing lots of games would come under gross abuse, but it would be impossible to regulate the throwing of one game, because technically, that is just strategy, and taking away the right to throw a game, or suicide would ruin the game defacto.

The threat that a player might at some point get mad and suicide is real in every game, and one could say is the game itself in many cases.

Throwing an individual game would only really be wrong if it was done for reasons outside of the game, or retribution for another game. But proving that is pretty tough, not to say impossible.

I agree that throwing a game in this way is not abusing anything per se. I just wouldn't want to be the unlucky person who didn't want to ally with you because it just didn't make sense to him/her strategically.
I dunno, this is one solution I suppose but not a very interesting or fun one. I suppose if you thrive on the sense of empowerment in at least knowing that your decision affected the outcome of the game, however irrational, you could use this method. I still like mine better. It's at least leaving the game to the fates as opposed to someone's ego.

[Neoteny]

So, it has come to this...

First attack went well. Let's see what happens!