How to play when you have no chance of winning?

[Gaspar]

The problem with PB2 wasn't Sullla/Speaker's reputation. The problem was the gigantic skill disparity between them and the majority of players on the board. The only other two players on their level got rushed. In games of relative comparative skill, this sort of thing doesn't happen.

[Tasunke]

I think part of the reason u almost always see a clear leader in simul games is because of map disparity. (using the map generator)

[Qgqqqqq]

Umm, most simultaneous turn games here haven't used a map generater (though it could be argued that they were unbalanced), therefore your reasoning id flawed from the outset.

[Thoth]

The problem with PB2 wasn't Sullla/Speaker's reputation. The problem was the gigantic skill disparity between them and the majority of players on the board. The only other two players on their level got rushed. In games of relative comparative skill, this sort of thing doesn't happen.

I disagree.

The problem with PB2 was the appalling displays of poor sportsmanship on the part of some of the players in that game.

Gifting cities to a third party when you're getting pwnd?

WTF?

What happened to dig in and fight in an honourable fashion?

What happened to "never surrender, never give in" ?

What happened to the RB spirit?

When did "Most losses are caused by insufficient stubbornness" become "Oh shit, I lost. Better gift away my cities so the guy who beat me doesn't win". ?

Thankfully, the overall tone in games here has shifted away from that kind of nonsense since then.

[MJW (ya that one)]

The problem with PB2 wasn't Sullla/Speaker's reputation. The problem was the gigantic skill disparity between them and the majority of players on the board. The only other two players on their level got rushed. In games of relative comparative skill, this sort of thing doesn't happen.

I disagree.

The problem with PB2 was the appalling displays of poor sportsmanship on the part of some of the players in that game.

Gifting cities to a third party when you're getting pwnd?

WTF?

What happened to dig in and fight in an honourable fashion?

What happened to "never surrender, never give in" ?

What happened to the RB spirit?

When did "Most losses are caused by insufficient stubbornness" become "Oh shit, I lost. Better gift away my cities so the guy who beat me doesn't win". ?

Thankfully, the overall tone in games here has shifted away from that kind of nonsense since then.

You are "forgetting" the fact that Jowy sucided his army--not on purpose but just by being bad. It would take basically no effort for Spulla to take out the citys. The choices are not "digging in" vs "citying gifting". But "taking it like an idot" vs "city gifting". Also PB2 was an early game and people only bitched about city gifting a few times before--and the city gifts were to stop an AP win not to deny conquest.

The rest of your arguments too were already talked about in the lurker thread. I'm not going to copy them unless you ask. I just found your implict attack aganist Jowy to be very weak.

By the way, I don't know if the average game at RB is getting better. There was the epic fail of the double-moving pitboss but that really does not count...

[Qgqqqqq]

Umm I think your attack on Jowy is worse then Thoths (though I doubt either was meant).

Saying he had lost his army by "being bad" and only had a choice between gifting cities and "taking it like an idiot" is much more rude then Thoths general complaint against the ethics of some of the play (not just Jowys).

I dont understand your PB7 point either - play has clearly improved (although perhaps you meant drama ).

[NobleHelium]

[zakalwe]

I guess this may vary from person to person but I think most people find it easier to swallow an attack on their competence than an attack on their integrity.

There is still drama in our most recent games, and I don't really think it's fair to expect people to always play "rationally" for the win, anyway. Sometimes the balance of a game rests on the threat of "mutual assured destruction". If one player betrays that trust and drags someone with him into a negative-sum war, then the other might feel compelled to make a point and prolong that war, just for future metagame reasons, even if it won't improve his chances to win the current game. It's the same kind of logic that would dissuade people from breaking NAPs, even if their only concern were to maximize their chance to win.

[Jowy]

I wish there was as many willing to play as there is to theory craft

[MJW (ya that one)]

Umm I think your attack on Jowy is worse then Thoths (though I doubt either was meant).

Saying he had lost his army by "being bad" and only had a choice between gifting cities and "taking it like an idiot" is much more rude then Thoths general complaint against the ethics of some of the play (not just Jowys).

I dont understand your PB7 point either - play has clearly improved (although perhaps you meant drama ).

I thought it had to be an attack against Jowy. Thoth only talked about city gifting. Only Jowy and Whosit gifted cities. Whosit was much less bad as he was gifting the cities so he would not have to hit 'end turn' untill Plako showed up. So Thoth was talking about Jowy. Now, that I've read your post I understand Thoth was just speaking in general and it was not an attack against Jowy.

I trust you know what you are talking about when you say the games are getting better at RB. I just brought up PB7 as a possible counter-example.