Not Playing to Win....thoughts?

[Keebs2674]

I have a complaint about some people I've played against and I wanted to find out if this is something that annoys/bothers/frustrates others or if it us just me.

Occasionally, I've been in games in which, towards the end, there is a player who clearly isn't going to win and they recognize this. They admit this fact, and then either position themselves so that a particular opponent has a better chance of getting their cards or they throw all their armies at a particular opponent that they either don't like or don't want to win. Sometimes they say they just pick whoever is the strongest at that point and suicide agains them.

I'm generally of the opinion that you should always play to win. Even if you're pretty sure you're going to lose you should always do what's in your best interest. (That's one of the reasons I don't like the idea of a surrender button.)

What do you all think? Is attempting to pick winners and losers when you, yourself, are going to lose, a noble part of the game or is it relatively underhanded and should be discouraged by either condemnation in the chat or feedback?

[Optimus Prime]

If I am ever in a game with more than just 2 players I will never suicide into someone unless I believe I have a decent chance at grabbing their cards and then going after someone else. I would especially never just give up for no reason in a game when there are still plenty of players remaining besides myself.

If someone does want to give up, they should simply deploy their armies and leave everyone else along in my mind.

However, in a 1 vs 1 game if you believe you have no chance it is pretty easy to concede the win by attacking until you are down to 1's on all territories. I have seen that done in countless games.

Play to win, you'd be surprised at the chances you have if you just lay low for a couple of rounds when you appear to be weak.

[Coleman]

I'm of a school of thought that you should be playing for points, once winning is impossible (like less then a 1% chance even if your opponents are complete morons) you should do what increases the chances that the highest ranked player wins so you lose less points.

There is a logic in that. Honor? Not sure, probably not.

[Aerial Attack]

The only time when I would advocate not playing for the win is if you are in a multi-round tournament with cumulative points across several games played. Well, actually - you are still playing for the win, just on a more big picture scale. But, that's the only time I can see playing to get 2nd or playing to eliminate someone ahead of you in the standings.

Have I ever played just to eliminate someone I was angry with ... eliminate no - make sure they didn't win, yes. Should I have engaged in such behavior? Probably not.

[bomberman760]

This aspect of risk is not new - it has always been a fact of the game since its inception. Once someone knows they cannot win they will:

1) Fight to the bitter end and hope that someone makes a horrible mistake or their luck turns around, or
2) Suicide against someone, usually whoever gave them the most grief or the strongest player.

While 1 is the route I prefer, 2 is perfectly acceptable. The goal is to win, and we all have to screw someone eventually. It's part of the game.

[Chirondom]

I have come back from no continents and only a couple territs against two players who controlled Asia and Europe. Cashed in a set, took back Asia, and won. Never, never, never, give up.

[HayesA]

I'm of a school of thought that you should be playing for points, once winning is impossible (like less then a 1% chance even if your opponents are complete morons) you should do what increases the chances that the highest ranked player wins so you lose less points.

There is a logic in that. Honor? Not sure, probably not.

This topic came up a few times before. Once when I was involved in such a situation. That's what got me my neg feedback.

I agree with Coleman fully on this.

But such a tactic should be used as a last last resort. Much like resorting to violence, and lethal force should be used in real life as a last last last resort.

[misterman10]

Personally, I always play to win, because you never know what could happen, especially in escalating games. However, in those games where its clearly obvious I am out of the game, I realize the situation and I base my attacks accordingly. I normally go after the lower ranked player, because if the higher ranked player wins, I lose less points. I don't say this in the chat, but I can't help the fact that I think this way and attack based on it.

[borox0]

I always play to the end, anything can happen. If I am near to losing I keep going in the slight chance that someone else mucks up. Anything can happen.

[EmperorOfDaNorth]

I do the honorable thing.

But for those with few aspirations other than being a points-whore, I do understand the logic, which is indeed valid logic.

For me though, logic isn't everything. When 'Cookie' plays a brilliant game or happens to be lucky on the day, that should be the win he fought for.

[stringybeany]

This thread is making a strong case in support of stratified games.

[MeDeFe]

I've made and seen others make comebacks from being locked up in a corner of the map somewhere without a continent and no possibility of getting a card, even from one single territory in no cards games. There is no such thing as "game over" until you've been eliminated. By playing to win and not to lose as little as possible I'm getting close to 2500 points (again). It perpetually amazes me that people would actually f*ck up an otherwise good game because they're afraid of losing to a sergeant instead of to a lieutenant

[TipTop]

It is a subject that is brought up regularly. Not everyone plays the scoreboard game. Some players just want to play a fun game and not have it be ruined by a suicider.

I know we are all enemies and we are supposed to attack and defeat each other but it is one thing to eliminate someone when your trying to win, it is quite another to ruin someone's chances of winning by throwing the game to somebody else.

Aerial Attack made a good point about tournaments. In some tournament games it can be an effective strategy to play for 2nd place if that will help you progress. But a tournament is something players sign up to play, the scoreboard game is not!

At the end of the day there is no rule stopping you suiciding but it is dishonorable and grounds for a negative.

[jako]

It is a subject that is brought up regularly. Not everyone plays the scoreboard game. Some players just want to play a fun game and not have it be ruined by a suicider.

I know we are all enemies and we are supposed to attack and defeat each other but it is one thing to eliminate someone when your trying to win, it is quite another to ruin someone's chances of winning by throwing the game to somebody else.

Aerial Attack made a good point about tournaments. In some tournament games it can be an effective strategy to play for 2nd place if that will help you progress. But a tournament is something players sign up to play, the scoreboard game is not!

At the end of the day there is no rule stopping you suiciding but it is dishonorable and grounds for a negative.

i agree that u should not just simply give up and suicide, but u cant dismiss that its loigcal to make the highest point player win so u lose less points. it is in no way something that is deserving of a neg.

[TipTop]

It is a subject that is brought up regularly. Not everyone plays the scoreboard game. Some players just want to play a fun game and not have it be ruined by a suicider.

I know we are all enemies and we are supposed to attack and defeat each other but it is one thing to eliminate someone when your trying to win, it is quite another to ruin someone's chances of winning by throwing the game to somebody else.

Aerial Attack made a good point about tournaments. In some tournament games it can be an effective strategy to play for 2nd place if that will help you progress. But a tournament is something players sign up to play, the scoreboard game is not!

At the end of the day there is no rule stopping you suiciding but it is dishonorable and grounds for a negative.

i agree that u should not just simply give up and suicide, but u cant dismiss that its loigcal to make the highest point player win so u lose less points. it is in no way something that is deserving of a neg.

It would only be logical if we all signed up to play the scoreboard game. Surely you must realize most players don't take their points/rank that seriously and just come here to have a fun game of Risk. To those people suiciding does ruin their game, therefore a negative would be justified!

[CecilDK]

Well, what about those people that may have had a chance to win but they suicide into a player just to make sure they can't win. I've had this happen twice now with the same player in two games. I broke his bonus, so next turn he deployed more then enough armies to resecure his border and the one with his neighbor that is more powerful.

Instead he deployed all 16 or so armies and rushed through a few provinces and broke through my 10 and with great success, he had 14 left. Instead of redeploying those armies, he left them there thus giving the game to the other player whose strength was already slightly higher then both of ours.

I noticed he was in another game of mine as well after this happened and figured he would go after me in that game as well. I was right but he did the exact same freakin thing but he was in a better position to win this time. All 3 of us were pretty close in strength and he even had a advantage over me in terms of having 5 cards(flat rate). He deployed all troops and broke through my defense and crippled me and didn't bother to redeploy in a way that would help him. He just left them in one bonus terr and bordering the other bonus terr so in case I try to retake it he can just break it again easily. I easily broke his bonus and going to try and use it as a staging point to recover the game but it would be a miracle if I could.

In this case I feel cheated, it seems this guy is pissed and he screwing up any games he's in with me. Not to win but just to make sure I don't. I can't believe I'm going to have to give my first negative feedback and ignore my first user. I figured that I would never have to do that unless someone in a doubles/triples game didn't show up for the game or something similar.

err...yes /rant