tstorm823 wrote: ↑4 years ago
You're really not listening to me or yourself anymore. You suggested it might be right to ignore the biggest threat cause they'll let you keep your stuff longer if you attack other people, I said that's wrong, and somehow that became never attack anyone else? I never suggested you never attack anyone but the biggest threat.
Let's go to the tape:
"Ignoring the biggest problem is wrong 100% of the time. Something that benefits a single opponent can benefit you as well so long as the opponent benefiting isn't your biggest obstacle."
Attacking anyone except the biggest threat is benefiting that player (if you're going to get technical about the "single opponent" bit, we could be talking a 3-player game).
-if another player is the biggest threat, attacking someone besides them benefits them.
-any move that benefits the biggest obstacle (threat) can't benefit you as well (your words)
-therefore, if you attack anyone except the biggest threat, you don't benefit.
-therefore, you should never attack anyone except the biggest threat.
explain where I'm wrong.
What I am suggesting is that sometimes it's bad to attack weaker players and sometimes it's right to go guns blazing into the person with removal.
As my fellow kids say, "no duh".
"If I'm the overwhelming threat then yes, absolutely you should sacrifice whatever needs to be sacrificed to breaking my shields, no question"
Who said that? Oh, right, that was me, agreeing with you ages ago, if you only read the words I write.
You've been expressing a desire to aim your threats wherever they'll do the most damage, and that gives no consideration at all for what other players resources are going to do.
No, Jesus Christ, No. I've been very clear, every time, that whether I'll attack a softer target is predicated on the board state - generally, a board state where it's balanced enough that our goals are not well-aligned. If the other player is a big threat and the soft target's resources are likely going to be fighting them, then I'm likely not attacking them, as I've said every damn time.
"within certain margins"
"as long as the table is somewhat balanced"
"so long as I think I'll be able to finish [the threat player] later."
"whether I'll attack someone is dependent on the board state"
Do you see why I might be frustrated, when I'm very careful to clarify that my decision is going to depend on a lot of factors, and then you come in spouting off "you said you'd just always attack the soft target no matter what
"?
If I think you'll beat me in a 1-on-1 exchange, it's better to lose an eldrazi than annihiliate other players who might give me a better chance to beat you. In the 7/7, 6/6, 5/5 scenario, the free 6 damage might actually be damage working against me if it helps the 7/7 player kill them sooner and then I can't keep up after. You're not giving consideration to other people's resources working in your favor.
Holy...that's literally all Phelddagrif DOES. Stop putting words in my mouth, it's driving up the wall.
Of course the 6 damage helps your opponent, which is why I've been extraordinarily clear that whether I'd make the attack depends on the balance of the board state. Given the situation: P1 with a 6/6, P2 with a 7/7, P3 with a 5/5, with overall threat order going P2 > P1 > P3, if I'm P1, I wouldn't always attack P3. I wouldn't always not attack P3, either. It depends on what the exact balance is, how far ahead P2 is, where P3s resources are most likely to go. If we're all pretty even, though, most likely I'm swinging into P3, because so long as things are pretty even, eliminating a player is going to improve my win%. If P2 is way ahead, almost certainly I'm not because I'm counting on P3's resources to be used against P2 and I can't beat them alone. I'm not offering an absolute answer about whether I'll attack. It depends on the specifics, whether I'd make the attack or not.
You're offering the absolute answer. "Ignoring the biggest problem is wrong 100% of the time." So you would never make that attack, no matter the board state, if P2 is even the tiniest bit ahead of P3. And as we all know...only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.
As regards the Eldrazi scenario: let's say you think you'll lose a 1:1 exchange, but it's pretty close. 45:55. But if I kill your eldrazi because you get aggressive with it, the board state is even and we're all sitting on a roughly 25:25:25:25 chance. I would say it's correct to do some damage while you can, maybe even until the other opponents are dead, rather than run headfirst into the spikes until they've had their fill of bodies. 45 > 25.
inb4 "but those percentages are impossible!". Yawn.
Then you'd needlessly lose a lot of games in any environment where people aren't naively doing your bidding.
What exactly is the alternative you propose, if I've been saved by another person's fog, except do my best to win from here on out?
Honestly I'm not even sure how this quote makes any sense in the context it's in.
In theory, you're dead on the next baloth player's turn. You don't have the option to shrug off suggestions that might prevent that.
Dude, that's what he should have been saying when the smart player predicated the fog on the stp the turn earlier.
Make you understand.
And in your experience, when you tell the person you're arguing with, "I'm right and you just don't understand", that opens their eyes to your truth, does it? Or does it probably just annoy them and derail the conversation?
You're dismissing my strategies as only appropriate for a silly casual environment
I think I've been pretty clear that, if your meta already frowns on deal-making, then deal-making becomes a bad strategy.
That said, disallowing dealmaking is going to make certain circumstances unwinnable. If I'm the stp player and I can't offer to trade my stp for a fog, and have to just hope the fog player wants me alive as an ally...then if he doesn't want me alive as an ally, I'm just going to lose without the ability to make a deal. If that's how you prefer your games, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not how I play.
As far as assuming past favors will help convince your opponents to do you favors that are against their interests without a deal in place when you made the favor, though - yes, that's pure casual. Everyone should only be making the correct play for them at a given time. Previous actions are irrelevant. Let the past die.
Boom, two star wars quotes in one post. I'm on a roll.
while explaining your dealmaking powers that only work because people humor it and think it's fun.
They work so long as people are comfortable with dealmaking conceptually, and wish to maximize their win%. They don't accept deals that don't benefit them, generally. They don't accept deals just for "fun" or "to humor me" (Jesus Christ how condescending can you get?). They accept them because they're good deals that improve both our win%.
Maybe they also think deals are fun, but that's not why they accept mine (when they do).
You need to come back to Earth. I'm talking politics and strategy here, and you're not understanding, and you don't realize you aren't understanding or you wouldn't keep thinking I'm just telling you to make friends and they'll let you win. That's never been what I'm saying.
So you think I'm putting words in your mouth? Gee, I wonder what that's like.
This is what you said:
"And chances are, they'd be particularly amenable to the request after you've fogged for them. That's honest cooperation."
Explain to me why someone would be more amenable to doing something you want - against their interests, like freeing you up to take the lead with a huge draw spell - based on something you did in the past (and only because you were trying to improve your own win% anyway). And if you think stping the thief isn't against their interests, then why would they need to be made "amenable" in the first place? Wouldn't they just do it, fog or no fog?
If you're not even leaving up a mana to cast Fog, you're just wrong. You're going to draw all lands and feel really dumb and lose and deserve it. You're still refusing to see other players as an asset, you're still taking win-or-lose gambles when you could gain easy marginal advantage and continue the game, and you're still suggesting you'd basically always take the antagonizing play.
hahahahaha.....
Wait, like 2 posts ago didn't you say you had an 80% chance to win the game if you cast rev - not just "not totally brick" but actually win the game - and now you're assuming that you're going to draw THIRTEEN lands and lose? Wow, what an
about face!
If I'm the archenemy, no, that's the one time that I don't see other players as an asset. I see them as obstacles to be eliminated ASAP before they manage to take me down. And if I've just drawn 13 cards in a game where everyone else is low on resources, then I'd certainly assume I'm the archenemy.
But fine, let's say you leave up the fog mana just in case of the...calculating...0.0016% chance that I manage to brick into all lands and want an ally alive for one more turn. Then if I look at my hand, and - wow, surprise, it's full of gas, and not a dozen lands! Enough gas to become the threat and likely win the game! Well, now that I know for sure I haven't hit a dozen lands, and I'm now angling to win instead of recruit allies - I'm definitely not casting that fog now. That player would for sure become another obstacle to my victory, so I definitely don't want them alive, let alone use a card to save them.
And if you take a "marginal advantage and continue the game", is that not a win-or-lose gamble? Sooner or later, you win or you lose. Personally, with the numbers we're talking about here, I'd be suuuuper happy to commit to this gamble. If I hit 13 lands, a 0.00067% chance, and lose, then I guess I lose. Why, do you think your winrate for continuing the game is going to be better than a 99.99933%?
(anyway it's not like you'd necessary lose anyway, you could just reveal your hand, everyone could have a good laugh at the absurd luck, and then you wouldn't be the threat and the game could progress as before)
I guess the stp player can hope that rev player decides to hedge his bets by leaving up the mana, and then manages to totally whiff on the rev, and then decides it's worth saving them with the fog. But if I were them...hell no, I don't want your .0016% chance (which is probably actually 0% since I think it's certainly correct to not leave up the mana in the first place). You can make a deal that you'll fog if possible, or I'm going to assume you have no interest in casting the fog, in fact you probably wouldn't even leave up the mana. And you can deal with the thief yourself.
But like, you're also contradicting yourself. You've said yourself that keeping your deals is the right thing to do, having a reputation for doing so is good politics, but now you're claiming you would suggest to someone that killing the Notion Thief might help them and then you'd screw them because they didn't get a figurative handshake on it? In what world is that the right answer? I don't think you would do that because I know you know this is just a dumb suggestion.
Is it a deal, or isn't it? If we're just people trying to make the right plays, then once the thief is out of the way, the right play is not to fog. If it's a deal - whether that's signed in triplicate and filed to the state attorney, or just a colloquial "I'll save you if I can", then that's a deal and I'd uphold it. If it's clearly not a deal, then there's nothing to uphold, just a misplay to make if I want to (and I don't want to).
You don't get it both ways. If it's a deal, then it's a deal, and if you agree to take part in it then you're making a deal, no matter how it's worded, and you have to admit that a deal would be useful here. And if it's not a deal, and your future plays aren't constrained by what someone else did, then you have no responsibility to play the fog, and it would definitely be a misplay to do so. Call it whatever you want, I don't care. It either is a deal, and it's binding, or it isn't and it isn't. Pick one.
Now personally, if I didn't have a deal, but was worried about looking like a bastard, maybe I'd leave up the mana for show but not cast the fog. I'd just make a sad face and go "aww, I'm sorry, didn't draw it. Now excuse me while I win this game, which just got easier now that you're no longer in it. Oh look, fog was my next topdeck" *quickly shuffle hand*
We both know you're nefarious. You haven't been hiding it. Pretending you aren't in the game doesn't make it not true.
Wat?
You found out my nefarious plot of trying to win games of magic, and sometimes talking frankly on the internet.
I don't say things in actual games in the same way I say them online. That would be stupid. But since we're not in a game and don't need to play nice, I think it's more fun to say what I mean.
Alternative theory: don't make the offers. Don't back yourself into a corner where you have to make the incorrect play because someone else isn't explicitly cooperating.
Of course you should avoid making offers where you're promising to do something you'd otherwise want to do anyway. I said:
"Try to avoid making any offers where not doing X is worse than doing X without Y in the first place"
If I'm in a likely-desperate situation where I think my only realistic chance to get back into the game is to threaten mutual destruction with someone - whether a minor misplay the only slightly hurts our chances, or an outright murder-suicide - personally I'll make the offer - and I'll stick to my guns and go down with the ship if I have to. If I'm already up a creek, and no one is willing to throw me a paddle, then I'm willing to throw away the slim chance that I could crawl back on my own in order to improve my chances of being taken seriously in future games.
That's my entirely subjective opinion, there's no truth or untruth to whether it's better to sacrifice the current game for potential future games. If someone else refused to ever make any deal in which they'd still want to do what they offered even without the deal, I think that's a very reasonable way to go about it. Under that code, you don't offer the fog in exchange for the stp unless you think your best play, if he refuses, is to deny the fog. If you think you should play the fog regardless, then you wouldn't offer the deal - you'd just do it. Either way, though, the result is the same - when you make someone an offer, they take you seriously, because they know they won't get what they want for free if a deal is on the table.