| 1 |
I don't know, but in the situation where
|
1 |
I don't know, but in the situation where
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
(1) Player A explicitly allies with Player B to defeat Player C in a 3-way FFA
|
3 |
(1) Player A explicitly allies with Player B to defeat Player C in a 3-way FFA
|
| 4 |
(2) While destroying Player C, Player A says "just killing Player C is my goal"
|
4 |
(2) While destroying Player C, Player A says "just killing Player C is my goal"
|
| 5 |
(3) Player B then attacks Player A
|
5 |
(3) Player B then attacks Player A
|
| 6 |
(4) Player A says "okay my goal is done" and resigns (to be clear, the game was 100% over at this point)
|
6 |
(4) Player A says "okay my goal is done" and resigns (to be clear, the game was 100% over at this point)
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
then, even without previous context, in my opinion Player C has pretty good reason to feel that they have been denied a fair and reasonable FFA game by Player A.
|
8 |
then, even without previous context, in my opinion Player C has pretty good reason to feel that they have been denied a fair and reasonable FFA game by Player A.
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
With respect to the post of @dyth68: Having a reputation for being unusually duplicitous/manipulative/whatever in FFA does indeed come with costs. I don't think this game falls within a reasonable definition of what those costs should be.
|
10 |
With respect to the post of @dyth68: Having a reputation for being unusually duplicitous/manipulative/whatever in FFA does indeed come with costs. I don't think this game falls within a reasonable definition of what those costs should be.
|
|
|
11 |
\n
|
|
|
12 |
---
|
|
|
13 |
\n
|
|
|
14 |
A further point of clarification: Sometimes you are going to end up in a bad FFA game. This does not always mean that everybody or anybody else played in bad faith.
|
|
|
15 |
\n
|
|
|
16 |
To take this game as an example, if hedkeaf had committed less to the attack against Hoppili (still sending enough to be sure that Hoppili would be defeated by Bonke) and instead built up their economy in preparation for the coming 1v1 against Bonke, that would be a perfectly reasonable way to play, even if hedkeaf had (say) a 40% chance of winning the resulting 1v1. That is still better than the 1 in 3 chance hedkeaf could be assumed to have by default, and given that hedkeaf is lower rated than Bonke and a lot lower rated than Hoppili, 1 in 3 is probably a generous default assumption. Given Hoppili's rating, Bonke and hedkeaf probably *should* gang up on Hoppili quite a bit in this game.
|
|
|
17 |
\n
|
|
|
18 |
However, the things that @hedkeaf said in allchat make it hard to believe that their play was based on any such strategy or analysis, as opposed to just having it out for @Hoppili.
|
B1259101 3 on Trefoil_v2 (Multiplayer)