Do we owe anything to the other player?

Multiplayer Discussion
15

In this example there is still a not mentioned competition underlying everything: The competition of the groups (like different departments and also the company itself) towards other such groups. This inherently will create conflict as they’re litterally trying to sabotage one another for each groups individual gain. At least that is what I mean by “competition” and was my point.

The problem I see is that depending on what the competition is about you’re going to neglect your competitiors which is suboptimal.

Example:
Two cell phone companies work on a new cell phone and have different ideas and approaches. They work in secret because in a competitive environment you could of course openly share information but why would you do that? The “win” of the other/s goes at the expense of me losing. It’s irrational to help others in a competitive setting.
But what if they instead would actually cooperate without any competitive element to it? They could learn much from their shared information on how to do this or that or whatever.

Just you look at any invention. They are all done due to cooperative elements and the competitive elements are hindering progress.

For example the flying machine required many different attempts and only because the previous experimenters didn’t withheld their information in a “competitive fashion” others could begin where they left and don’t had to resort to “trying a shot in the dark”. (Most died anyways with their attempts but you know what I mean. Also you now have companies with copyright extented far beyond the death of the author, so…)

Yeah, I would really like something like that. That should reduce the competition for people that would rather want less and focus more on the casual “just have fun” aspect.

Maybe. It all depends on the exact context. As I said it’s all very complicated when you go into the details.

I already had such a discussion with someone. But looking back it seemed to me we were totally talking past each other. And the same seems to be happening here…

I don’t know what you exactly mean by “competition” and for me it’s rather hard to describe to be honest. I can just give a link to an ebook on the subject I read once: https://www.tromsite.com/books/#dflip-df_6704/1/ That’s why I think “competition” should be rather avoided if possible.

16

You don’t owe them, but that’s not an excuse to be a jerk.

17

Res Priest is okay, but Waygate is insane actually. They discover keyword preference is doing the game a little bad.

Instead these cards to say “Discover a random card” it should to say “Discover a different random card”. All these need this change.

18

It is hard to explain too much here as it will derail the OP thread.
(should create a separate thread to respect OP if you wish to disc more)

Thus, I will try to end this within this post, as short as possible.

I believe there is many cross partnership among competing companies to develop part of/product. (Apple, IBM, Motorola)

There are many cases of such ‘sabotage’ while if we look at them, it usually indicates a poor management as source. Top companies recognize these ‘sabotage’, and have culture and practices to manage these groups.

Not all true. Inventions that happens because of competition should also be given due credit. Without the competition, we may not see Personal Computers being made available to public as it was not the norm then. Nor will we see Apple impact to the technological market.

Competition in those cases, create an opportunity for people/groups to break away from the norm to new invention. Had they had co-operated, the tendency to be held back by red tapes and bureaucracy is much higher.

I see otherwise. What I’m trying to do, is to open my world perspective to you, as well as yours to mine. In that sense, we may (give a chance) understand each other better.

19

But only a part. Imagine a friend but they’re only there for you on the weekend. Yeah… thanks… I guess.

Not saying it always have to be perfect cooperation. But competition seems to be problematic in my view.

Well, only if the public recognizes and condemns that.

Also you seem to be missing the point. “Competition” (at least how I see it) is always about “sabotaging” the other in order to gain individual advantage. This doesn’t have to be bad. But generally it tends to cause conflict and with that many problems may arise.

A good example is how we “compete” with diseases (like Covid-19) and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But when it comes to humans it’s… more complicated. They can get angry, want revenge, etc. I think when we can’t properly estimate the potential dangers we should always try to do things in a “cooperative way” because… just think about yourself: Would you rather get help from others or instead be forced to beat the [REDACTED] out of the others to survive? And where does that lead…? I don’t think we should focus too much on it. Only as much as really necessary. Or if we can rather safely assume that there is not much “drawback” in “competing”.

And what about the fatalities? I’m asking because the other person brought that up as well but specifically mentioned war. And yes, the progress due to the war efforts certainly helped a lot in the devolping PCs and whatnot. But at what price? And how can you be sure it wasn’t possible to achieve it otherwise? Like with complete peaceful cooperation on every level? I wonder… :thinking:

Because it’s impossible that anyone would share something like that freely just to improve everyone’s life.

To be fair, as I said it’s irrational to help others freely in a competitive setting, but I’m talking about the principle.

Competition is based on conflict and as that can potentially create many problems as opposed to cooperation which is the exact opposite and tries to harmonize everything.

As I said it’s impossible to get “perfection” but I think we should still strive for it.

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here, but for what it’s worth government itself is of course also a “player in the game” and forced like everyone else to be in constant competition.

Could you imagine a world where not everything is about “How can I screw over the other one so that they don’t screw me over first”? Maybe something worth thinking about.

Yeah, I know. But language and communication is very tricky here. What exactly is this “competition” anyways? I certainly can’t just show you a picture of it. It’s a made-up concept which can differ considerably form person to person.

Ultimately everything is down to communcation. Everyone is right in their own way. We just can’t communicate everything properly.

1 Like
20

Let bring this discussion elsewhere if you want. I will join in your thread.

1 Like
21

There is a weird balance to your fun vs your opponent’s fun.

You are absolutely not responsible for their mind state.
But that being said, you are still playing against another human being. A person who may be going through their own hardships during the COVID pandemic.

You have the freedom to spam emotes to possibly bother them, wait until the last second to end every one of your turns to be hardcore or whatever.

You can also accept the fact that you both just want to have fun, and you can even have fun losing if the other player genuinely makes good plays to win or counter your plays. Your enjoyment does not have to come at the expense of the other.

Of course everyone would rather win, but every game always has at least as many losers as winners (most have more). Losing with grace can be every bit as enjoyable as winning with power.

1 Like
22

You’re too kind for strategy games.

In general there is an simple way to not be affected by this. Just look at your fun anf play what gives YOU fun.
If you have fun everything is okay.
If you not have fun you stop to play.

If every player did let devs actually have to think about what is in fact fun for a player or not the game would be both better balanced and designed.
That because they need to actually start to work instead of copy and paste whatever the community says.

Decisions like the “open the waygate nerf” only shows how much out of touch they are and decisions that are out of touch are an solid indicator of they having no idea of what the playerbase means and just vomitting decisions because “the community wants”.

I know that in short term many here gonna think that have an staff that actually do whatever the playerbase ask is good but many of our actual in game issues are actually caused by decisions that had no planning behind other than “let’s do what the public says” in the past.

It’s their dutty to actually reflect about those kind of decisions and even to give an no while accepting the hate that comes with it for the sake of the game itself.

23

Roping before conceding is one of the more acceptable times imo. Sure, some people do it to BM, but Ive lost count of how many times Ive done it trying to find an out via different combinations of trading and/or cards from hand, so I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt more often than not for roping before conceding.

2 Likes
24

Let me clarify then.

People roping, going AFK and doing nothing after a strong swing turn, which may or may not lead to lethal the following turn.

25

Cool, I thought that was what you meant and agree :wink: I just cant assume BM for roping on a concede turn by default unless its blatantly obvious.

26

No, how fun things are to play against is 100% the DEV’S responsibility. Not the player’s. If something is unfun to play against and also effective, that’s a design failure, player etiquette never needs to enter the equation.

27

Objectively define fun.

28

Did you play by the offical rules of monopoly (A.K.a no money on free parking, auctioning properties players pass up, ect) or did you play by the rules that make it long, drawn out and luck baed?

29

Some play to win, some play for the spectacle, and there’s lots of area in-between. As for me, I find myself acting as a mediator of sorts, where if I have a severe advantage, I tend to ease-up and give my opponents a chance to close the gap (but some resent that). Whereas “play-to-win” aims for total domination, my ideal “win condition” is the tightest match possible (but I come out on top, of course).

30

Asking people to objectively define fun is kind of missing the point. “Game feel” is a cornerstone principal of game design and some subjectivity is taken for granted in the craft always.

31

How so? You said the devs are responsible to make decks fun to play against. Without an objective way to measure fun, thats an impossible task.

32

It’s not impossible at all. They’re content creators. We don’t ask food critics or chefs to objectively define what tastes good. We don’t ask hollywood producers to objectively define what makes a movie entertaining. We ask them to create enjoyable content.

And yeah, that’s gonna be subjective. That doesn’t mean there aren’t characteristics we can observe and evaluate to decide whether it was successful or not.

1 Like
33

Then show your theory that objectively defines fun.

34

The Devs shouldn’t have to make changes, so that a mama’s boy can play!