Etiquette of being "kingmaker" when you'll definitely lose?

[enjoycocacola]

I'm in a multiplayer trench game where I have virtually zero chance of winning. Opponent #1 has a rating of about 1300, and Opponent #2 has a rating of about 2250. So all things being equal, I'd rather lose to Opponent #2. Opponent #1 is currently winning the game.

However, is it unethical/unsportsmanlike to help Opponent #2 win? Is it considered suiciding or something? Should I just be agnostic about who wins?

Thanks for any guidance.

[betiko]

well it's not very fair for the lower ranked. but at the end of the day it's up to you, people suicide on others all the time when they get pissed off or whaever other reason and it's ok with the site, so I don't see why point management would be a less valid reason than being pissed off.
I'd say it's your choice. either you feel bad for the low ranked because you wouldn't like other people to do it to you; in that case just drop and don't attack... otherwise just think in a logical/Selfish way.

[Army of GOD]

pretty sure that's straight up against the rules

[betiko]

pretty sure that's straight up against the rules

when you get idiots suiciding on you just for fun, even over several games, and you report it, the only thing you'll hear from the mods is "nothing to see here". How is it going to be against the rules to attack player A rather than player B when you decide to? mods can't judge ballance breaking.

The other day, I was playing a speed game with a very low ranked player and a colonel left. the colonel had to go, so he just left without using his troops on any of us. It' quite nice, but on the other hand by leaving and with the low ranked playing right after him, he didn't break any of his bonus, broke the ballance of the game and left me with no chance in 1v1 against the lower ranked. I asked him to rebalance the game before leaving and he didn't want to, saying that he didn't want to be unfair to anyone... that works if there are more than 3 players left, but in a 3 players game you break completely the ballance no matter what... given that he broke the dynamic of each player breaking the next player's bonus before his turn. As a result, he lost 3 times the points he could have, but it was his choice. He tried to be as fair as possible to both, but in fact he wasn't.

[owenshooter]

pretty sure that's straight up against the rules

actually, it isn't.. and it happens all the time... people that have lost the game will often help the player that will create the least amount of point loss for them... another reason i play team and poly games...-Jésus noir

[waauw]

I'm in a multiplayer trench game where I have virtually zero chance of winning. Opponent #1 has a rating of about 1300, and Opponent #2 has a rating of about 2250. So all things being equal, I'd rather lose to Opponent #2. Opponent #1 is currently winning the game.

However, is it unethical/unsportsmanlike to help Opponent #2 win? Is it considered suiciding or something? Should I just be agnostic about who wins?

Thanks for any guidance.

personally I would just always attack the stronger one on the pretence of "keeping the balance". Even dispairingly bad situations can be overwon given sufficient time and sufficient idiot moves by one of the 2 others.

[Stephan Wayne]

is it unethical/unsportsmanlike to help Opponent #2 win? Is it considered suiciding or something? Should I just be agnostic about who wins?

Its ok to make moves to determine the outcome of the game in your favor. I mean your overall goal going in was get points all you would be doing now is making sure you don't lose points thats about the same thing really. As long as you did not go into this game planing on helping someone else its fair. In the end it comes down to you would you feel cheated if it happened to you ??? If so don't do it otherwise its fair play.