Loosing on purpose: morally justifiable? - Page 2

Xrati · #11 July 22nd, 2005, 10:01 AM

"Special Olympics" do you think they care who win's and who loses? They all go out there and do their best! That's what GAMES are for!!!
It's a "game" and NOT a life threatening situation. Life is not fair and to act as though it is, is called 'dreaming'. A game is competition and to not do your best is to cheat the other players who are there to establish their capabilities vs others. I'm sure there are may different opinions about this, but just ask yourself what "a game" means to you. Athletes no longer play a game, it's now a business to them. They are paid for their performance and winning and losing are important. Remember, it's a game and you should be playing for the enjoyment of it. There are all kinds of ways of balancing games to further the playing enjoyment.

Leslie · #12 July 23rd, 2005, 07:04 PM

There is no second place in life, but there is in games.

Someone HAS to be second place (unless you are playing solo eh). The AI doesn't count either.

I can't expect everyone to game the way I do, but, anyone that would get emotional about losing, is likely best not played a second time.

I think losing sucks, but I am human, but, I CAN deal with it.
I won't be playing anyone a second time that can't say that.

I once had a rolegame character that was clearly being given to much protection for the sake of preserving the game's "storyline".
I confronted the GM and made it clear, if I could NOT be killed, the GM could expect me to ignore anything that was a threat, because I had no reason to care.

There can be no thrill of victory, in the absence of the potential of defeat.
Winning when there is no chance of losing, is as boring as never winning.

So, if you can never lose, you have to either pick another game, or intentionally alter the situation to allow for it.

Mephisto · #13 July 24th, 2005, 06:53 AM

I'd give them a fighting chance by not seizing every opprotunity to crush them. After all I play the game to play it with my friends, not just to win.
As in a RPG the fun lies in the contest and playing WITH, not against my friends.

Leslie · #14 July 24th, 2005, 08:35 AM

If a person is a "total novice" I tend to overly state every permutation of potential action during training games.

I never play a person as an equal, when it is clear they ain't.

For me, well, when I am new to a game, I EXPECT the first few games to be short and not important to finish fully. If I make a serious flub, I expect to be allowed to concede the game, learn from the error and move on to the next try.

I tend to avoid "lenthy" games with people that really don't understand the game ie I will NOT set up The Longest Day, just to watch a player completely ruin their turn 1, only because they didn't have a clue what they were doing. It takes altogether to much effort to set that game up, only to have the effort wasted in under 15 minutes.

The_Tauren13 · #15 July 24th, 2005, 08:09 PM

To clarify my answer for #2 "Neither of these.":
I would use the opportunity to try out new strategies that I think are pretty crappy. So, while not trying to lose by any means, I would not be playing at my best.

quantum_mechani · #16 July 25th, 2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

The_Tauren13 said:
To clarify my answer for #2 "Neither of these.":
I would use the opportunity to try out new strategies that I think are pretty crappy. So, while not trying to lose by any means, I would not be playing at my best.

Yeah, this is a good one too, a lot of fun.

Phoenix-D · #17 July 25th, 2005, 06:49 PM

Yeah, playing new people is a good way to test new things out.

So is when you're loosing miserably, actually.

tesco samoa · #18 July 28th, 2005, 12:21 PM

perhaps you should address your victory conditions. Many SEIV games come to an end when an alliance of players win or if the remaining players have come to an agreement that they just do not want to fight it out so the game ends with no victor...Just lots of survivors.

not every game has to end with one player remaining. Perhaps that is what you need to chat about.

Anonimus · #19 August 3rd, 2005, 08:40 AM

Thanks! I choose Answer 10, the open discussion. We started over with a new game.

They did not want to experience their big armies in action. Maybe it is true that another slaugther would have yielded no useful insights to them.

Suicide Junkie · #20 August 4th, 2005, 01:55 PM

When you have a dominating position, it is time for some of the following:
- Multiple opponents to ally against you
- Throw in the force quickly, and enjoy the bloody combat replay. If your forces manage to avoid Murphy's Laws of Combat, the outcome is decided, and its time to start a new game.
- Roleplay a bit more while pushing ahead and trying new tactics just to see how they work. (You'll slow down, but almost certainly still win)
If the opponent enjoys the valorous defense, they'll be happy to continue. If not, start a new game.

*** Note ***
It should definitely be stressed that "no longer fun" is an implied 'victory condition', and should mark the end of the game just as definitively as "last man standing"

If holding back triggers the "no longer fun" condition, its over.
If not holding back triggers it, its over.

The details of when this applies depends on the Psychology of the players involved.