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...

[Gillipig]

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.

Most likely he was just lucky. Maybe he got a good drop or dice or both .

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.

I'm actually of opposite opinion. Retributive suicide won't gain me any points so I wouldn't do it. The example above though (where a player tries to get taken out by the highest ranked player) would gain me points. And I've done that many many times in the past. I don't do it now because I don't care about points anymore.

[kmhebert]

Heh I don't tend to suicide however in this game, green pissed me off so badly that I got mad and suicided into him. I even told him so! But after a turn or 2 of that, I realized I still had a chance (blue was playing a stacking game that was not working for him), so I pulled back and ended up winning:

Game 9589977

So, in conclusion: I don't know?

[Metsfanmax]

I'm actually of opposite opinion. Retributive suicide won't gain me any points so I wouldn't do it. The example above though (where a player tries to get taken out by the highest ranked player) would gain me points. And I've done that many many times in the past. I don't do it now because I don't care about points anymore.

If your retributive suicide results in a lower ranked player winning than the one who would have won had you just laid down and died, then yes, it does gain you points.

[soccerghost]

If you are ever in a position where suiciding will directly influence the game, you still have a chance to win said game - especially because all the big fish tend to forget about the little fish. However, if a person screws me over, I will make it a point to kill them.

Game 9663987
Teal held England, and assaulted into my bonus, posting up 90% of his troops in Russia. I took his troops out, and continued to dedicate all of my men to eradicate him, knowing that he will and had attacked me at every opportunity. I may have gone from troop count leader to low man on the block, but at least I don't have a player dedicated to solely killing me. Namely, I took the attackers advantage and ran with it, suiciding teal. I may not have a great shot, but at least I am still in the game with a chance to consolidate any bonus I can keep.

[rokus35]

when im obviosly going to lose a game since im freemium i click autoassut till i cant assult

[JediJoe]

God I hate suiciders. Yes, if there is someone obviously about to win, by all means throw everything you've got at them, as long as no one else is stacking. That is a valid strategy, as once the dust settles, there may be a chance to rebuild. But this game has no 2nd place, and too many clueless martyrs. There is no place for retributive suiciders - it throws fun games out of balance, handing hard fought games to undeserving winners.

I could care less about points, I'm in the game to grind you down and destroy you. If you get mad at me for focusing my attention on you, its nothing personal - i see you as a threat, or an obstacle to my goals. Why behave like a child, throw a tantrum and suicide? If you're not playing to win, but rather to suicide on someone, providing you with cheap therapy, please move on to Modern Warfare or whatever else can fulfill that desire for you. Don't ruin a game that I've potentially invested months of my time into... You will quickly be foed.

*steps off soap box*

[Sey69]

Rank means very little and the points mean even less.

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

I agree 95% with KoE's statement. The ranks (and points) are used to encourage people to join games (by beating the higher ranked players) and as such are 5% good (subtracted from the 100% agreement with your statement) . I find I don't mind losing a game as much IF I've had fun playing it. Ranks (and points) come up and go down. Don't get me wrong, I like winning as much as everyone else! but, I don't mind losing some fun ones too.

(and Medals are forever)

[Kaskavel]

Suiciding is pointless.
But...threatening to suicide (against stupid massive attacks) is powerful.
You will have to execute the threat once in a while if opponent calls the bluff, but, as in many things in life, the threat is more powerful than its execution.

[Sey69]

... There is no place for retributive suiciders - it throws fun games out of balance, handing hard fought games to undeserving winners.

...

I've found myself embroiled in several games lately where this has been the case. All part of the game, bud. True that it can suck big time but, it's all part of the game.

(please feel free to cry me a river, if you wish)

and if CC didn't want us losing to higher-ranked players versus lower-ranked ones on purpose, I guess they shouldn't have based the ranking system on points earned in a game (according to ranks).