Conquer Club

I've decided to create a poll to see what the community thinks about this situation.

We all know throwing a game is wrong. You should always try to win. Now, when you're playing a non-1v1 tournament with "complex" rules and you are convinced (let's say mathematically) that you don't need to win a certain game in other to be classified for the next round if you somehow knock a certain person out before you get killed, is it ok for you to abandon your chances of winning that particular game to kill that person and thus lock your classification for the next round?

Another way to express the situation is: is it right to purposefully lose a game if that will raise your chances of winning the tournament in question?

Yes sir. Like when teams in sports that know they'll have a seed in the playoffs rest their starters and accept the loss. It pisses some people off sometimes but it's worth it.

throwing a game is throwing a game is it not? no matter the circumstance.

Rodion wrote:I've decided to create a poll to see what the community thinks about this situation.

We all know throwing a game is wrong. You should always try to win. Now, when you're playing a non-1v1 tournament with "complex" rules and you are convinced (let's say mathematically) that you don't need to win a certain game in other to be classified for the next round if you somehow knock a certain person out before you get killed, is it ok for you to abandon your chances of winning that particular game to kill that person and thus lock your classification for the next round?

Another way to express the situation is: is it right to purposefully lose a game if that will raise your chances of winning the tournament in question?

I can't speak for anyone else, but...if I'm in a tournament, my goal is to win the tournament. I don't know that I would claim that it's necessarily "right", but it is what it is.

Many tourneys have certain rules like top two advance. I would not necessarily say throwing the game is right, but playing for the top two is. That being said there is ways to do well and finish top two without suicide or making alliances. I answered yes, but at the same time it is a fine line. Personally I will take bigger chances knowing that if I fail to take an opponent out he would be so weak the next guy could walk the board, but I would advance. I will not just suicide or make an alliance as to me both are just too cheap when trying to win a tourney.

If you only need to finish better than a certain player, taking them out, even knowing you will lose the game because of it, is totally legit.

So long as the rules of the tournament are clear and indicate that your type of tactic is likely or might occur, then I think it's fine. A big problem with terminator suicides against the highest ranks are that it is not understood to be a viable tactic, but if the tournament is designed to advance certain individuals based on elimination order then I think it's understood that you may attempt to get an elimination although you'd lose the game just to advance in the tournament.

Actually, throwing a game is not always wrong in any way. Sometimes your threat of being able to smash a player as a small player is your only chance of winning or staying alive in a game. Further, sometimes you need to exercise that right, to show you are willing to do it, and essentially show other players you are not a push over, which may keep them from bullying you in a similar situation in another game. That isnt to say you should just suicide every game for nothing, but its certainly your WMD that all players have, which is why you typically have to be as afraid of a small player in a game, as much as some of the larger ones. They have nothing to lose, so unless you can take them out fully and make it work to your advantage, its often good practice to not upset them. Its an important part of the game that many miss a lot of the time.

As far as suiciding to advance in a tourney, sure it possible, but every player has to decide for themselves it a tourney is worth that kind of action.

targetman377 wrote:throwing a game is throwing a game is it not? no matter the circumstance.

Its throwing a game yes. But that does not mean its incorrect, a violation of the rules, or a violation of the spirit of the game in any way. Sometimes, maybe often it is, but not hardly always the case.

The throwing games rule, is a misnomer because the name itself does imply throwing a game is against the rules, when in fact that is not at all what it was meant to imply.

The rule is meant to protect against many throwing of games to shed points, many throwing of games to one player or the same group of players, but in no way was meant to diminish a persons right to use their armies how they wish in any one particular game, based on the parameters in that game, which can easily extend to an entire tournament.

What would be throwing games, is if someone joined against a player and threw games at him for personal reasons, or just to diminish their chances in the tourney, but as long as there is some plausible reason why a suicide may be justified, it often is. It may never be deemed good sportsmanship, but that isnt necessarily relevant because being a good sport is hardly a rule.

I'm with HA on this one: There is a difference between throwing a game and playing for, let's say, top 2. I play to win the tournament first, individual games second. In a musical chair setting (all advance except first one eliminated), I set up my troops not so much to sweep the board as to not being the obvious first target for anyone.

When in doubt about a situation, use the golden rule of fairness: Just don't be a douche.

AAFitz wrote:

targetman377 wrote:throwing a game is throwing a game is it not? no matter the circumstance.

Its throwing a game yes. But that does not mean its incorrect, a violation of the rules, or a violation of the spirit of the game in any way. Sometimes, maybe often it is, but not hardly always the case.

The throwing games rule, is a misnomer because the name itself does imply throwing a game is against the rules, when in fact that is not at all what it was meant to imply.

The rule is meant to protect against many throwing of games to shed points, many throwing of games to one player or the same group of players, but in no way was meant to diminish a persons right to use their armies how they wish in any one particular game, based on the parameters in that game, which can easily extend to an entire tournament.

What would be throwing games, is if someone joined against a player and threw games at him for personal reasons, or just to diminish their chances in the tourney, but as long as there is some plausible reason why a suicide may be justified, it often is. It may never be deemed good sportsmanship, but that isnt necessarily relevant because being a good sport is hardly a rule.

WHO ARE YOU

There are a ton of tourneys where winning isnt a requirement for moving forward to the next round. The goal is to win games...but in context of tourneys, assuring that you stay in long enough to give yourself a chance to win the whole thing becomes the #1 goal.



Then again I havent won a tourney yet...but that is my goal.

I play to win the tournament. As a secondary goal I play to win games within the tournament. I don't make alliances within tournaments unless they are being used against me in other games. I've no idea if it is "right" but I haven't had complaints about it yet.

rockfist wrote:I play to win the tournament. As a secondary goal I play to win games within the tournament. I don't make alliances within tournaments unless they are being used against me in other games. I've no idea if it is "right" but I haven't had complaints about it yet.

tournament guidelines state that no alliances should be formed. as for me, i play to win the game.

squishyg wrote:as for me, i play to win the game.

Thank you, Herm Edwards. <grin>