Is it unfair to suicide after an obvious threat?

Game of universal domination. New dice available free upon request.
User avatar
WhirlPlaid
miSKAlaneous
Posts: 3872
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:55 pm
Location: Habitual board flippers should have their dice taken away.

Post by WhirlPlaid » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:53 pm

I have been thinking about this debate for a while now, and I have a different perspective then I did just a few days ago. As anybody that has read this thread will know, I never suicide for any reason at any time.

I am not going to defend my stance on this because honestly, IMHO, it is the only logical decision.

Here is what I am going to do.... I am going to defend the individuals right to suicide or not.

As a poker player, I relish the situation where a poor player comes to my table and makes tons of bad plays. Sure I might get beaten out of a pot by this bad player but over all I will take advantage of his bad plays and take more pots from him, then him from me.

I personally believe that someone in our game that suicides is making a bad play (just like my foe at the poker table) and that in the long run I will post better winning stats than the suicider (just like my foe at the poker table).

Also....when at the poker table and I am confronted with a bad player who beats me out of the occasional pot, am I going to critique his play? Of course not. Why? Because I want him to continue to make bad plays because statistically and mathematically I know that I will beat him in the long run, I don't want to clue him into his errors, I want him to continue to make the same bad plays so I will be able to reap the rewards.

This also goes for Lux. I want people to suicide. Why? It takes the suicider out of the game and normally one of my foes with them, consequently I get to mop up and book myself a victory.

So I guess I am saying, that if you want to quit, and suicide, go ahead....its just one more game that you are not going to win and who knows...maybe I will. Thanks for the win.


(So from this post I hope (dear reader) that you take away two things. )

1. Go ahead and suicide, as a luxer its your right.
2. After you suicide and I win (or lose) I am not going to critique your play. (In fact I hope I will be able to hold my tongue more often and not critique anyone's play).

User avatar
Rhye
Lux Crooner
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:42 pm
Location: From Here to Eternity

Post by Rhye » Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:13 pm

The only flaw in your theory is that in poker you have the option to fold if the game gets too agressive for you, or if your hand (start) was too bad and you didn't catch anything on the flop (mid-game perhaps). And in lux, attacks are (typically) made on just one player, while in poker attacks are made to the whole table. Very rarely does a suicider attack every player evenly, therefore a suicide gives one player a notable disadvantage while giving the other players a notable advantage. Such events are rare (if your definition is lenient) in poker.

I wouldn't say that I dismiss your theory though. The idea [that you've proposed] that suiciding can be viewed as (to quote Photos of Dustin in France)
Michelle quoting one of the missing pictures wrote:It's not a bug it's a feature
Seeing suiciding as a feature, rather than a bug, is certainly an atypical idea.

User avatar
paranoiarodeo
Semiholy Exile
Posts: 10421
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:30 pm

Post by paranoiarodeo » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:15 pm

Two points, Whirly: 1. I don't think the poker analogy works here, for a variety of reasons. Real money being involved for starters. Who cares how ignorant, drunk, stupid, loudmouthed or boring your opponents are, if you go home with their money?! In other words, you'll overlook almost any bad behavior that makes the game unfun, 'cause your winnings have real, tangible value outside the game. 2. Turn order, for another. In poker, everyone gets a crack at the pot, best hand wins, not just the guy who acts immediately after the troll. I think that's where you're missing the bigger point. Of course, a suicider is removing himself and another player from contention, but by doing so, he's more or less turning a game of skill into one of chance. I'm sorry, but I don't wanna spend my evening in Lux mopping up after morons. I'd much rather play honest, intelligent games with friendly players.

Also, reemphasizing an earlier point, lemme just say that mopping up was a "feature" of Rome and MOTW in 2009 and 2010, and same goes for much of biodeux today. There were several well known players who were "retaliatory suiciders". If you touched any of their income, no matter how weakly defended, or how few of their armies you killed, they'd often respond in a way that ruined not just your game, but their odds of winning as well. Best thread ever? LINK. Honestly, looking back on that discussion, it makes me kinda ill knowing that Grim was ever a moderator. By tolerating and institutionalizing that sorta "strategy", he and others made Rome an awful, awful game. Instead of teaching newbies the finer points of card killing math, or when it's logical and appropriate to pop income and to what extent, or when it's not, etc., Rome ended up with a player culture where too many "good" players won by playing ultra-passively, and waiting for someone else to attack the "wrong" person. No wonder Rome never chased well on weekends, when suddenly all those high RAW players, who'd been cleaning up after newbies all week long, were stuck alone together, with no one left to pinball around the board. Marathon, after marathon, after marathon? Duh.

Look, I'm not advocating for heavy handed punishment of single game suicides, but I think Lux would be a more skillful and welcoming game community, if we found better ways of discouraging what is fundamentally a form of bullying. After all, Lux is ultimately a game of logic, with just enough luck sprinkled in to keep things exciting. We should be rewarding players who thrive by their ability to analyze the game board, predict their opponents moves, and adapt accordingly, not those who hold everyone else hostage with constant threats of board flipping whenever things won't go their way.

∞ paranoiarodeo shrugs ∞

User avatar
dollabillz
Disinterested Hipster
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:34 am
Contact:

Post by dollabillz » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:16 pm

god i love when that thread gets trotted out.

User avatar
nimrod7
Clown Prince
Posts: 9685
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:51 pm
Location: Under the big top
Contact:

Post by nimrod7 » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:23 pm

I must admit that I agree with para here. I would rather win a game because everyone played well then because someone got pissed and decided to go nuts and hand me the game.

I would also rather play against skilled players which means that I will offer what advice I can to help someone play better then constantly take advantage of their poor performance.

User avatar
WhirlPlaid
miSKAlaneous
Posts: 3872
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:55 pm
Location: Habitual board flippers should have their dice taken away.

Post by WhirlPlaid » Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:03 pm

Just a few follow up points:

1. I too would prefer to play in a suicide free game against well rounded skilled players. It makes the victory that much sweeter.

2. I will still (as I always have) try to help newer players get a better grasp of winning strategies, but I hope to no longer lose my temper and critique others play in a demeaning manner especially if the player is a veteran.

User avatar
Kude
omni member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: waiting in line for luxtober §

Post by Kude » Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:33 pm

Ok, slight speculation. Say a player suicides, and ends up winning for once. Does his/her victory justify the suicide?

User avatar
mazza
Lux Sugar Daddy
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:30 am
Location: BANEVILLE, Adelaide, Australia;

Post by mazza » Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:40 pm

tell me Kude, how does a player suicide and still win?

a player can half kill, sure and end up winning, i have seen that happen heaps, but a blatant suicide, i do not see how they possibly can win from that position......


That is like seeing if a kamikazee pilot actually survived ramming his plane into a warship in WW2

User avatar
Kude
omni member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: waiting in line for luxtober §

Post by Kude » Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:55 pm

ah, but it has happened. More than once, I've seen it. Mostly due to others stupidity. These suicides we've been talking about, what I see is one person wasting all his troops on one or more large concentrations without an end in sight where they won. But for this, they would go, and waste everything in a round where nobody but he could cash. They would hit or avoid all large stockpiles, pop all or at least the largest of continents, and in the end, nobody would have much. Then he or she would cash for the win.

User avatar
Big Will E Style
RAW Dogger
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:28 am
Location: Los Angeles, California

Post by Big Will E Style » Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:23 pm

mazza wrote:tell me Kude, how does a player suicide and still win?
Come on Mazza...have you seen the competition lately??? I've seen plenty of suicides and then scared players who don't know how to make kills and then the suicider gets a kill his next round and ends up winning.

User avatar
mazza
Lux Sugar Daddy
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:30 am
Location: BANEVILLE, Adelaide, Australia;

Post by mazza » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:22 pm

i suppose my definition of suicide and half-killing may differ from others, but a suicide to me is when a player puts everythin into a revenge attack, so that he not only decimates his opponent but himself at the same time......from this position, the "suicider" cannot win as their troop count just is not there anymore........on the other hand, i see peeps "half-killing" others into oblivion (or maybe 90% kill), yet still has enough armies to actually pull off a win, which i think is what you are referring to. Either way, a bullshit move in my opinion, and yes Will, you are right, it happens far too much in this community for me to enjoy playing to the level that I once did, and i figure you, and many other good players feel the same. AND, sure, it may have been a time when this was only seen in Rome games or bio, but yeah, it has filtered thru to classic in such a way that an even game can be easily destroyed by 1 bad apple in the 6 playing.....

jesterme
Lux Duck Lover
Posts: 3179
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:06 am

Post by jesterme » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:28 pm

all the suiciding, asshattery, teaming, multi-regging, etc. etc won't be fixed in a forum thread.

i am pretty certain a lot of that could be eliminated, if eliminating it was important.

my 2¢

User avatar
General K
Lux KAPITALIST
Posts: 2266
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: Land of the Cedars

Post by General K » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:12 am

Suicide, whether strategic or revenge, didn't start with Lux as part of the game instruction. It was established by the community with time.

When I first started playing the game online I was extremely peaceful and naive to some extent since "chasing" was not my main objective as much as learning to be part of the community.
Then like a sponge I started to get affected by the actions I witnessed and decided to endorse them since the community accepted them.
I still remember the first game I witnessed a suicide. it was a double teamed suicide actually: Jerry T was getting the suicide treatment from Sidhe and Pale Kate. back then the Host privilege was not established and an unwanted player could not be booted from the room. And the 6 players were getting in the game randomly and not based on their rank or raw. Because they wanted him out of the room, I watched Jerry T being suicided, and suiciding back while the community was watching and laughing.
I was shocked since the whole thing was non-sense to me back then (why would someone not play to win?).
The suicide movement took a more strategic approach when players started protecting their "image" by establishing a common understanding: "if you touch my territories or ruin my chances I will ruin your chances in return" which evolved later on to "as a retaliation I will ruin your chances in a medal for the rest of the night... in the rest of the week... and sometimes for 2moth or more".
every single player chasing for a medal adopted to some extent this philosophy.
I remember magpie suiciding for Oz, para suiciding occasionally because his income was popped and he lost chance in winning the game, mud suiciding to teach a certain asshat a lesson etc... for me this was RULE and if you don't "mark your territory you will get pissed on".

Then quickly I started adopting this strategy, because it was somehow a winning one to the extent that some chasers (specially the new ones) started seeing GK as the devil himself and got him exiled.

1 year later I came back as Josef, and back then I decided to play a totally different character. Josef wasn't aggressive at start, chasers used to like him since he was naive and n00b. He was gentle and he wasn't complaining when he was denied any chance in competing.
in the 1st weeks Josef was getting "pissed on" during the chase. As a n00b I went again through the same process where I needed to re-mark (in a less GK way) my "territories" otherwise I would never get into competition.
when Josef started competing (too soon for a n00b which pushed some to accuse him of being an alias) I started to mark gently my territory and trust me when I say I was way too gentle than certain chasers who are still playing the game.
Dustin and some mods who were monitoring me decided I should be denied access to Lux because they thought Josef would become another GK.

3 years after I was exiled, I am discovering that the same "system" still exist.

in this game, if you want to chase you need to mark your territories to forbid others from ruining constantly your chances. Each chaser is doing this in his own way. some are doing it by making occasional strategic suicide moves, some others they show punishment by popping income or play for places or worse: they simply cripple you in the game without bluntly suiciding you.

Bottom line if you want to enjoy online lux peacefully one piece of advice: Don't play for raw.

if you want to enjoy a fierce competition in Lux then play strategically and make sure other players don't take you for granted! I am not inviting anyone to be a punk, being a punk will get you banned. but a fact is a fact: from time to time you need to mark your territory!






:idea:

User avatar
soundboy
Sonic Turtle
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:22 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by soundboy » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:48 am

General K wrote:Suicide, whether strategic or revenge, didn't start with Lux as part of the game instruction. It was established by the community with time...

:idea:
History and Strategy through the eyes of The General.

/me SALUTES!

:smt020

User avatar
Deep Blue
Lux Moderator
Lux Moderator
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:36 am
Location: space

Post by Deep Blue » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:11 am

When he sais it, It sounds much more profound

:smt109

User avatar
3DA
Luxtopian
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:26 am
Location: Big Chicago
Contact:

Post by 3DA » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:14 pm

General K wrote:... double teamed ... the suicide treatment from Sidhe and Pale Kate.
Sign me up.

User avatar
Stelee
RENUNCIANT
Posts: 766
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Heralding the Apocalypse

Post by Stelee » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:22 pm

paranoiarodeo wrote:I just wanna double back and emphasize a few things here, so they aren't lost in the general discussion:

1. I don't think it's fair to equate Baden's behavior, last night or more generally, with magpie's. I'm magpie's second most common opponent with ~800 games, many of which were weekend chases during the golden years of competitive Lux. I believe I can speak better than almost anyone else about his style of play. He never liked being "lined up" by clumsy newbies, and would often preemptively retaliate, in order to teach them a lesson. Did I always agree with his "magcratic" method? Of course not. Did I laugh? Oh, sure. But most importantly? His moves usually forced newbies to play the game better. His way of saying: "Don't position yourself so that you can only kill one other player. If you cash, and plan on killing next round, then place armies where you are able to attack several targets." Duh. Good players win more often 'cause of such flexibility. Newbies will remain newbies if they're always targeting "scary" veterans or anyone with "too much" RAW.

2. magpie never would let himself get stuck in a FOUR TURTLE game. Seriously. As he said above, he'd kill off one of the other turtles, assuming it wouldn't change the balance of power. He was smart enough to know how the turn order, card counts, army totals, etc., would determine the outcome of the game, and would only place kill when it was fair to all players involved. Oldschool, indeed.

3. I was positioned to kill three or four turtles, not just Baden. Was he was the obvious target? Absolutely, 'cause he offered the best "kill value" based on his army and card counts. Frankly, Baden shouldn't have been stupid enough — yes, stupid! — to turtle with two cards in a four turtle game, and not expect to die first. He put himself in that situation, and had no one to blame but himself.

4. Baden's move was not strategic. He wasn't trying to give himself a fighting chance of survival. It was an intentional, selfish, one hundred percent, down to his last army, sorta suicide. End of story. Echoing Dom's previous comment: "I don't care if I die, I just don't want para to kill me." That's the essential truth here. Don't forget it. Furthermore: Do that more than once to the same player? Griefing. Do that too often against several players? General asshattery.

5. Baden's so called "apology" isn't one of remorse or regret. He's unhappy that he was banned from a popular room of experienced classic players. He's embarrassed by the public ridicule in this thread. In other words, he's backing down 'cause he's been shamed. Will this incident and conversation change his behavior in the future? If you think so, then I've gotta bridge I'd like to sell you. Good condition. Great price. Pics on request.

(Bonus: 6. No one else in Lux can ruin a decent classic room faster than Baden.)

∞ paranoiarodeo shrugs ∞
PHEW!!! I thought I could ruin a decent game of classic fast... but thank god Baden is faster!

User avatar
Baden
Lux Elder
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:26 am
Location: Baden (Germany)

Post by Baden » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:01 pm

An interesting "Bonus" Para might write down:

The story of a mod and the "Road to Damascus" experience.

User avatar
Kude
omni member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: waiting in line for luxtober §

Post by Kude » Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

ok... now i'm a little curious. Whats that?

User avatar
Baden
Lux Elder
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:26 am
Location: Baden (Germany)

Post by Baden » Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:30 pm

kude wrote:ok... now i'm a little curious. Whats that?
History. How a sinner becomes a saint :)

I am still a sinner sometimes. But Para (who was sometimes a big sinner during his early Lux career) is working hard to make a saint of me now.

Post Reply