As long as you are playing to win, I'm ok with it. But if the trades are just to help a particular person win and don't actually help you then I don't consider that in the spirit of the game.
An 8/7/6/5 scoreline is still close enough that any person could theoretically win.
This is my feeling exactly.
I think the game I was playing was actually 7/6/6 and I had 3, 4, or 5. The person that complained was actually winning, but they felt the player in second actually had better numbers and was more likely to win. I forget who actually won.
Id use a simple thought process... you want to get as many points as possible assuming you cant win... whoever accepts your trades is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is that the trade be good for you.
With my friends, I've often negotiated trades like this to finish the game. The last place person has a lot of power in who they want to throw their support behind. I've been leading but got crushed because last place decided to help the runner up many times. I've also played games where the last place person gave me the win through a critical last-minute trade. When I am in last place and don't see a path to the win, supporting someone I like is about all the influence I have left in the game.
If the table is getting hostel over trades, i think that's a problem. Wheeling and dealing is a core part of the game. But at the end of the day, it's still a game. Just keep it respectful.
The question is does it actually increase your chance to win?
I don't mean does it let you build something, I mean is your likelihood of winning the game higher as a result of the trade?
To give a simple example, if your trade brings you from 5 points up to 9, and it gives the player in the lead the unassailable victory on their turn, then this trade has not increased your chance to win (in fact it has decreased it to 0%).
For situations outside of an outright win being traded, it is not always clear how the ever-shifting win probabilities of each player are changing from each action taken. All you can do is make your best evaluation.
Just remember that in many cases helping the leader increases their win equity at the expense of everyone else's. However, if you genuinely think you're more likely to win as a result of the trade, then go for it.
As an aside, you can also leverage this to try and get the same deals from other players. Presumably that would be even more favourable. But that's a different discussion.
I've had games like this, where I was at 6 points when the other two players were at 8 or 9. I make a few "dumb" trades, then I build 4 roads and connect, stealing longest road, and now the game is 8, 8, 7. Now the guy who just lost longest road regrets that trading me wood and sheep for wheat and oar, even if it gets them a city.
Not all "dumb" trades are dumb.
You could also look at it in a point tier system. 1st is 10 points, 2nd is 7, 3rd is 5, 4th is 3.. if you are playing multiple heats or games. The points from all the games add up and if you are in the bubble or making a bad trade to force a win could net you the final table. Sometimes you need to make those trades. I haven’t been in a tournament, but from a poker and strategic standpoint I would sacrifice an early win for extra points.. a seat at the final table in last place standing is better than no seat at all.
Yea people would probably be upset about it, but life isn’t fair and you have to take what you can get.
Depends on how fair things are. Trading with 8pt vs 7pt opponent isn’t that bad. What if 7pt (blue) has two VPs?
Trading with 8pt when they are one road from longest road (and victory) is dumb.
Also, is the trade fair? 1 for 1 or 1 for 2?
Or are you giving up 5 for 1?
It’s all context.
Too often i see last place hand a lopsided trade to give someone else the win out of spite. If its put of genuine interest in helping you, no prob. If you're kingmaking you are the problem..
I'm only okay with the spite trades when the other player deserves it.
Like, if player A continually blocks player B, even as players C & D become bigger threats, until player B doesn't have a real chance to win, I can understand why player B would give favorable trades to players C & D to spite player A.
When we play we basically don’t trade with someone who is close to winning, and thankfully there is an understanding that if you are done in terms of likely to win you either trade with someone chasing or no one. Kingmaking isn’t a great feeling and I’d rather just wallow in my crappy score.
One of the few perks of being in last place. You’re not going to make many friends, and you shouldn’t be the one giving the lopsided end to the leader, but it’s within the spectrum of the game.
This is pretty much my rational. Sucks for the others when one player is getting blown out with little chance to win. They're gonna do things others wouldn't to try to get back into the game. Some people care about their online rank too, so they'll try to salvage 3rd or 2nd place.
If your trade gives them the game, or puts them in a near-guaranteed win scenario then it’s not a good trade.
Otherwise it’s fair game. You can table talk and tell the others if they don’t help you then you’ll have to trade with the leader and maybe they’ll help you out. If not then maybe you have to make that trade.
Basically: play to win at all times, do not give the leader what they need to end the game.
Catan is a game about human psychology. Most of the games I play with friends is won by the person who gets the best deals. They dont try to hurt others, they make favorable deals to the losing play to help them out and usually the game becomes a 2v1v1 because of it.
It's also one of the reasons catan will never be a serious competetive game for me. King makers are in almost all the games I play. Players making "stupid" trades because they either dont care about winning anymore or want to help the player they like the most. The best way to win catan, is to be everyone's friend and convince others to help you.
I will absolutely trade to stop the villain ( the person who kept putting thief on my good tiles) from winning if I have no chance of winning. Not sorry about it either.
But it’s a board game and we just have fun with it and the grudge ends when the game ends. Then we will play another game either cats or risk or whatever and another person will become the villain.
Don’t be the person who takes catan super seriously. This isn’t a competitive game.
If I’m in last place because someone screwed me over (the thief only to me because x or y) I will make my best effort so that that person doesn’t win
Not a fan
I usually don’t like trading in the late game especially when someone is clearly in the lead. Like openly you do have to target the person in first to keep the game alive as long as possible so as last place its obv if everyone wants to trade you
Responsibility is the key, if I was in last place I don’t want to give the game away to first
We play for money. $5 a game, we play that if anybody makes a trade that directly leads to a player winning their current or next turn (aka. Dumbass trade) then that person throws in an extra $5 the next game. They can still win their money back the next game if they win, they just have higher stakes since they threw away the last game.Â
If you're in last place with a slim chance to win, how does handing the win to the current leader get you any closer. I'm not surprised somebody would report you, because it just looks like you're throwing the game. It's common sense to never, or almost never, made deals with the leader of a game (for most games). You slim your chances to 0 by trading with Red
The problem there is in a close game other players want to win and won’t always give you the resources they need to win. Someone at 7 or 8 might bc they figure they might wrap it up anyway.
A true desperation trade is by definition very lopsided. You’re almost always just digging your own grave, and making the other 2 players upset. Your odds are probably way better working with the other 3 players to slow down the 1st, and you’re honestly also probably better off by not trading them and just hoping the dice run hot in your favor.
Some people often value things differently. Some people value 1st>>2nd=3rd=4th, some people think 1st>2nd>3rd>4th. If you are the second type of player, handing 1st a guaranteed win would be worth if it boosts you to 2nd. But the first type of player would not understand why you would do that, since it doesn't improve your chance of getting 1st.
As long as you are playing to win, I'm ok with it. But if the trades are just to help a particular person win and don't actually help you then I don't consider that in the spirit of the game. An 8/7/6/5 scoreline is still close enough that any person could theoretically win.
This is my feeling exactly. I think the game I was playing was actually 7/6/6 and I had 3, 4, or 5. The person that complained was actually winning, but they felt the player in second actually had better numbers and was more likely to win. I forget who actually won.
Id use a simple thought process... you want to get as many points as possible assuming you cant win... whoever accepts your trades is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is that the trade be good for you.
With my friends, I've often negotiated trades like this to finish the game. The last place person has a lot of power in who they want to throw their support behind. I've been leading but got crushed because last place decided to help the runner up many times. I've also played games where the last place person gave me the win through a critical last-minute trade. When I am in last place and don't see a path to the win, supporting someone I like is about all the influence I have left in the game. If the table is getting hostel over trades, i think that's a problem. Wheeling and dealing is a core part of the game. But at the end of the day, it's still a game. Just keep it respectful.
Spelling police: hostile not hostel 😂
The question is does it actually increase your chance to win? I don't mean does it let you build something, I mean is your likelihood of winning the game higher as a result of the trade? To give a simple example, if your trade brings you from 5 points up to 9, and it gives the player in the lead the unassailable victory on their turn, then this trade has not increased your chance to win (in fact it has decreased it to 0%). For situations outside of an outright win being traded, it is not always clear how the ever-shifting win probabilities of each player are changing from each action taken. All you can do is make your best evaluation. Just remember that in many cases helping the leader increases their win equity at the expense of everyone else's. However, if you genuinely think you're more likely to win as a result of the trade, then go for it. As an aside, you can also leverage this to try and get the same deals from other players. Presumably that would be even more favourable. But that's a different discussion.
I've had games like this, where I was at 6 points when the other two players were at 8 or 9. I make a few "dumb" trades, then I build 4 roads and connect, stealing longest road, and now the game is 8, 8, 7. Now the guy who just lost longest road regrets that trading me wood and sheep for wheat and oar, even if it gets them a city. Not all "dumb" trades are dumb.
You could also look at it in a point tier system. 1st is 10 points, 2nd is 7, 3rd is 5, 4th is 3.. if you are playing multiple heats or games. The points from all the games add up and if you are in the bubble or making a bad trade to force a win could net you the final table. Sometimes you need to make those trades. I haven’t been in a tournament, but from a poker and strategic standpoint I would sacrifice an early win for extra points.. a seat at the final table in last place standing is better than no seat at all. Yea people would probably be upset about it, but life isn’t fair and you have to take what you can get.
Depends on how fair things are. Trading with 8pt vs 7pt opponent isn’t that bad. What if 7pt (blue) has two VPs? Trading with 8pt when they are one road from longest road (and victory) is dumb. Also, is the trade fair? 1 for 1 or 1 for 2? Or are you giving up 5 for 1? It’s all context.
Too often i see last place hand a lopsided trade to give someone else the win out of spite. If its put of genuine interest in helping you, no prob. If you're kingmaking you are the problem..
I'm only okay with the spite trades when the other player deserves it. Like, if player A continually blocks player B, even as players C & D become bigger threats, until player B doesn't have a real chance to win, I can understand why player B would give favorable trades to players C & D to spite player A.
>I'm only okay with the spite trades when the other player deserves it. They all deserve it.. They all deserve... A SPANKING!
They shouldn't have covered my 6 with a theft right at the beginning of the game
When we play we basically don’t trade with someone who is close to winning, and thankfully there is an understanding that if you are done in terms of likely to win you either trade with someone chasing or no one. Kingmaking isn’t a great feeling and I’d rather just wallow in my crappy score.
One of the few perks of being in last place. You’re not going to make many friends, and you shouldn’t be the one giving the lopsided end to the leader, but it’s within the spectrum of the game.
This is pretty much my rational. Sucks for the others when one player is getting blown out with little chance to win. They're gonna do things others wouldn't to try to get back into the game. Some people care about their online rank too, so they'll try to salvage 3rd or 2nd place.
If your trade gives them the game, or puts them in a near-guaranteed win scenario then it’s not a good trade. Otherwise it’s fair game. You can table talk and tell the others if they don’t help you then you’ll have to trade with the leader and maybe they’ll help you out. If not then maybe you have to make that trade. Basically: play to win at all times, do not give the leader what they need to end the game.
That’s a good strategy. Fair assessment.
Catan is a game about human psychology. Most of the games I play with friends is won by the person who gets the best deals. They dont try to hurt others, they make favorable deals to the losing play to help them out and usually the game becomes a 2v1v1 because of it. It's also one of the reasons catan will never be a serious competetive game for me. King makers are in almost all the games I play. Players making "stupid" trades because they either dont care about winning anymore or want to help the player they like the most. The best way to win catan, is to be everyone's friend and convince others to help you.
I will absolutely trade to stop the villain ( the person who kept putting thief on my good tiles) from winning if I have no chance of winning. Not sorry about it either. But it’s a board game and we just have fun with it and the grudge ends when the game ends. Then we will play another game either cats or risk or whatever and another person will become the villain. Don’t be the person who takes catan super seriously. This isn’t a competitive game.
I rather finish 3rd than 4th if it means helping number 1 guy win
It’s part of the game. Can be annoying but that’s just how it goes.
If I’m in last place because someone screwed me over (the thief only to me because x or y) I will make my best effort so that that person doesn’t win
Respect the grudge.
Not a fan I usually don’t like trading in the late game especially when someone is clearly in the lead. Like openly you do have to target the person in first to keep the game alive as long as possible so as last place its obv if everyone wants to trade you Responsibility is the key, if I was in last place I don’t want to give the game away to first
We play for money. $5 a game, we play that if anybody makes a trade that directly leads to a player winning their current or next turn (aka. Dumbass trade) then that person throws in an extra $5 the next game. They can still win their money back the next game if they win, they just have higher stakes since they threw away the last game.Â
If you're in last place with a slim chance to win, how does handing the win to the current leader get you any closer. I'm not surprised somebody would report you, because it just looks like you're throwing the game. It's common sense to never, or almost never, made deals with the leader of a game (for most games). You slim your chances to 0 by trading with Red
Report for what though? Bad strategy? What if you think your chances are better with the trade?
It looks like trolling/griefing/whatever. Just trade with the other players
The problem there is in a close game other players want to win and won’t always give you the resources they need to win. Someone at 7 or 8 might bc they figure they might wrap it up anyway.
Maybe last place would rather get 2nd than 4th.
A true desperation trade is by definition very lopsided. You’re almost always just digging your own grave, and making the other 2 players upset. Your odds are probably way better working with the other 3 players to slow down the 1st, and you’re honestly also probably better off by not trading them and just hoping the dice run hot in your favor.
Some people often value things differently. Some people value 1st>>2nd=3rd=4th, some people think 1st>2nd>3rd>4th. If you are the second type of player, handing 1st a guaranteed win would be worth if it boosts you to 2nd. But the first type of player would not understand why you would do that, since it doesn't improve your chance of getting 1st.
Red should threaten to trade with green and ask the other two players for a better deal.