Are 3 player games traps?

Everytime i spectate a 3/3 player game, its 2 guys beating up on one guy, usually starting near the one guy on a small map, or china/india allied against the other one guy.

Are 3/3 player games traps?

Well no but not every one is the nicest person on the planet and a lot of people won't have problems ganging up on another player.

Heres an example :

3 players, germany and turkey are allied, poland loses his capital by week 3.

Lol i'll join and beat them both.

both germany and turkey expanded completely wrong

Yes, usually players make traps of unfair teams.
Nothing new.

That happens sometimes.
Hell, it was 4 vs 1, me being the one, and I managed to beat 3 of them, and the last one surrendered. As long as you know what you're doing, you can win in unfair situations.

If those 4 guys knew what they were doing couldnt they just spam air transports + tanks/bombers and take your capital pretty easily?

Yeah they could've. But the problem was I had the upper-hand economically, and I knew how to play well, they didn't.

Napisano od Question, 18.05.2012 at 21:10

Everytime i spectate a 3/3 player game, its 2 guys beating up on one guy, usually starting near the one guy on a small map, or china/india allied against the other one guy.

Are 3/3 player games traps?

Several thoughts:

1. If you're playing poker, and you can't spot the sucker, odds are, the sucker is you.

2. Game Theory has any three party system permitting cooperation where net gains result from net losses to the other parties (zero sum conflict), even if all are parties are strangers at the beginning, collapsing into 2 v 1 -- but sometimes the dynamic can change (one of the parties on the "2" side defect). This is because, assuming the net proceeds are even (let's say 100 shekels) and the odds are even for winning (all players are the same skill level etc.) most people would prefer Case A over Case B.

CASE A: You cooperate with another party. Overall outcome: 66 shekels.
67% of the time, you win 50 shekels, because you and your partner cooperate and kill the enemy before either of you die.
33% of the time, you win 100 shekels, because you're partner dies, and the enemy dies but you live.
33% of the time, you win 0 shekels, because you die before the enemy dies.

CASE B: You go it alone. Overall outcome: 33 shekels.
67% of the time, you win 0 shekels, because you die before defeating both enemies.
33% of the time, you win 100 shekels, because you defeat both enemies.
67% of the time you win 0 shekels, because you die.

Numbers are approximate, and obviously this has strong, but not absolute, correlation with Afterwind, because of AW's semi-proportional awarding of SP, luck, various skill levels, backstabbing etc. and the simple fact: Some people aren't in it to maximize SP over the long term. Some people love to backstab.

3. See 1.

Srategos you are wrong, generally only noobs ally fag against me, i have happly taken 3 on 1, and do all the time, and win.

Napisano od nonames, 21.05.2012 at 18:33

Srategos you are wrong, generally only noobs ally fag against me, i have happly taken 3 on 1, and do all the time, and win.

I guess the whole reading and thinking thing eludes you huh?
Try a little harder to understand next time . . . but because I'm a patient person, I'll direct you to the point: "Numbers are approximate, and obviously this has strong, but not absolute, correlation with Afterwind, because of AW's semi-proportional awarding of SP, luck, various skill levels ..."

The whole point is that it is a natural thing for two to ally against one. This is the hard part, so read it a few times: All other things being equal, it is to the benefit of two parties to ally against a third, because it maximizes their overall outcomes. If you have a different perspective, other than anecdotal experiences unsupported by evidence or data, I'm interested.

Now Arbliterated, you're a very skilled player, therefore it makes even more sense for people to ally against you ... because their outcomes are worse than those projected above. Also, the question was: Are 3 player games traps? The whole point of the mathematical assessment was to demonstrate that, while three player games *might* be traps, just because people ally against someone does not make it so.

So, I guess I'd have to say that you're wrong, and I'm right.

No, i am a high rank, so they ally against me, skill level doesn't come into it, also their are plenty of high ranks that can't play the game for pants.

skill very vaguely correlates to rank up to about rank 6 until you know the basics, then it's up to the player to improve.

and people don't ally against me straight away deliberately, i don't ally them, so they ally against me, typical noob play.
i trap myself deliberately to gain huge amounts of sp, because they think they are strong for a long time.

The problem in your argumentation, Strategos, is that player skill, strategy and performance in game can easily skew those percentages, making, for Arbitrator, the chance to be the sole winner of a game higher than any other option.

Napisano od nonames, 22.05.2012 at 02:20

No, i am a high rank, so they ally against me, skill level doesn't come into it, also their are plenty of high ranks that can't play the game for pants.

skill very vaguely correlates to rank up to about rank 6 until you know the basics, then it's up to the player to improve.

and people don't ally against me straight away deliberately, i don't ally them, so they ally against me, typical noob play.
i trap myself deliberately to gain huge amounts of sp, because they think they are strong for a long time.

So that reading part still eludes you. Again, their behavior isn't unique to you, and is normal, human behavior, which also happens to be the best way available for those two players to maximize their SP. And while you are as unique as a snowflake, you are also as special as one, and so am I.

I can't speak to your *opinion* of the correlation of player level (accumulated SP) to player outcomes, but I can personally observe that with 108,330 SP there are still upgrades I want, that I haven't purchased, that would make at least occasional tactical difference -- which is another way of saying:
"Level makes a difference past Level Six".

And I ask you, in any case, to cite your evidence that there is no correlation between player level (accumulated SP) and player outcomes (who wins and loses).

Napisano od notserral, 27.05.2012 at 04:15

The problem in your argumentation, Strategos, is that player skill, strategy and performance in game can easily skew those percentages, making, for Arbitrator, the chance to be the sole winner of a game higher than any other option.

Again, that's not the point of the posting -- the point of the posting is:
1. 2v1 does not necessarily mean that it is a trap. 2v1 is natural human behavior.

2. Not only is 2v1 natural behavior, it is also a rational outcome, that, all things being equal, maximizes SP. I can't say that all players make this calculation.

3. Arbliterated, when he finds himself in a 2v1, shouldn't be surprised -- it is a forgone conclusion because he doesn't cooperate with either player, so, of course they're going to cooperate against him.

4. The percentages aren't skewed by player skill. The universe of those percentages is the probabilistic outcome where the chances of a player winning or losing is even, and there are (x) players, and each player has an equal chance at any particular outcome. That's what the phrase "all things being equal" means.

My OP was there, not just to "opine" but to demonstrate that 2v1 is natural behavior. It may very well be a trap, but isn't necessarily so.

OK, yes when i enter a 3 player game its always 2 guys against 1 and always when i get asked for alliance i accept cause that guy will send it to other guy and they will go on me together, but if u r a good player (and im not), u can win this, once even i menaged to win 3 vs 1 (i was that 1) it was something like this: i took germany, one guy took spain, other ukraine and third turkey. I thought that we make a fair 2 vs 2 fight so i send an alliance to turkey and he accepted it but then 1 turn after that he ended alliance with me so i attacked spain alone and i was next to his capital with some troops and he surrendered. Meanwhile those 2 other guys reached germany and i was defending for about 15 minutes against them. It was real pain in ass. Then i started attacking and that lasted for about 30 minutes because everytime i take something other guy saves the guy that i took that county from. At the end i won i took out ukraine and then turkey mostly because of their lack of money cause i had all rich countries (germany, UK, france, italy, spain). So however but they really are traps so try to avoid them. Only once when i was in 3 players game the guy who made game said no alliances so it was a real fair fight, but those games are really rare and i really think that they r some good guys out there in this dark 3 player world. LOL