I had the chance to close my route and get a solid lead, which locks in my victory if the person in last ends the game. If the person in last decides to keep the game going, this almost certainly gets me second place instead, because I don't get to do anything useful on the following turns and someone else does.
If I keep my route open, I have a shot at first place if the game continues, but this gives someone playing after me the chance to close a crappy route, and then they get first place instead if the person in last ends the game.
I find these kinds of calculations really frustrating. Sometimes it is just something like 'Is this opponent going to gamble to try to advance, and make a crazy play for first?' which isn't great, but isn't so terrible. At least I can try to figure all that out. But how should I play against someone who is totally screwed, but has maybe 1/1000 chance of getting out of last if they keep the game going? Are they the sort who never gives up, and never surrenders? Or are they the sort of person who values their time and who won't continue a game that is obviously over? That is the sort of calculation I can't do anything with in terms of game theory.
In the end I decided that the person in last was so far behind they were just going to end the game and be done with it. I closed my route, got a few points, and the game did indeed end. I don't feel great about it though. Knowing that I locked in the victory because someone decided it wasn't worth trying anymore isn't quite the glorious victory march I had envisioned.
But I do want to advance, so I guess I will take what I can get. :) I have a first and two seconds now, so advancing is totally plausible. I usually end up needing three first place finishes to advance in these things though, so I am not all that optimistic. (I figure most of the time two firsts and two seconds should do it, but I have been beaten with two firsts and two seconds most of the time I have gotten there, whatever the odds are.)
I am curious what other people think of the etiquette of ending games when you guarantee yourself last place. How much of a chance of improving that position do you need in order to stick in a game? Personally my answer is anything greater than zero - I won't give in until there is truly no way out. How do you behave in that situation?
If I'm definitely in last, then my goal is to end the game as fast as possible so that we can play the next game where I win. It was the only "logical" (explainable? defensible?) strategy I've been able to come up with.
ReplyDeleteIf I have a 1 in 1000 chance of winning...it depends on my mood. In a league situation, I might try to figure out metagame impacts by influencing other people's finishes. Or if I'm frustrated by the game in some way (my poor decisions, crazy decisions by others, random happenstance) then I probably just end it to make the bad feelings go away.
I do, occasionally, go for the very unlikely path to victory. But probably less and less as time goes on.
My general multiplayer algorithm when I can't win is:
ReplyDeletea) Am I out of it because one player screwed me over? Screw them over.
b) Maximize my point total. (I'm playing the game because I enjoy the motions of going through the game, regardless of outcome - this means I'm still doing that. Also, this is a fair approximation of what I'd be doing if I wasn't sure who was winning)
I prefer to fight until the bitter end. Most of the time the people I play with view this as an acceptable use of your seat - if playing your best results in one person winning then you weren't a kingmaker; you did what was reasonable for you.
ReplyDeleteOne of the frustrating things about Through The Ages for me is that this can actually be poor etiquette. I would rather try to squeak in a third if I'm about to be pummeled, but that can result in someone else losing to the person that's about to pummel me. The whole situation vexes me.
(Cue response: "Just don't put yourself in that position in the first place.")