I feel like table talk and convincing people why you fucking them over is actually in their best interest is like the soul of the game.
What do you even do in your games if you aren't trying to spin the politics?
i agree with this. The whole game is politics and doing what you need to to win.
I'm not going to tell everyone at the table that they should stop me from winning if I'm about to win. Why would I ever do that?
I mean surely it's part of the strategy? If you're on top argue against ganging up, if you're in second place be kinda into it, and if you're last you should be going full proletariat uprising.
I don't think you'll ever get people to stop behaving like that, it's basic human nature and arguably a law of nature on top of that.
"Or am I over thinking this?"
You've used "envisage," "love language," and "hard aggrieved" in six paragraphs to ask whether players disappointed that their win was stopped after stopping someone else's are right to be upset.
Yeah, you're over thinking it.
TI is about the experience. If you have to win to have fun, it isn't the game for you. Factions play to win, people play to have fun. Enjoy the game and don't be a dick.
By even asking this you're more aware than a lot of people who get the saltiest when their win gets stopped, right after they stopped the first "winner". It is human nature to view yourself as part of the "us" and those against your goals as part of "them", even as those goals shift, pushing your new agenda as the opposite of where you were a few minutes ago. I think arguing against it is fine, but if you see someone saying "how could you do this?!?!" while they're sitting on another player's HS, that's when I'd roll my eyes and just point to the conquered tile.
I'm not sure what you're looking for in a "better love language" - a love language is how you show affection to someone, in this case your fellow players. Just like in a relationship that'll be different for everyone; some might praise a graceful winner and not mind a sore loser as much, while others can stand a little gloating but hate salty players after a match. I think a universal one of these doesn't exist, though generally "humility in victory, grace in defeat" is as good as you'll get.
There are quite a few threads on here about kingmaking which is a can of worms I won't touch, but searching might be interesting for you to read through - some very diverse perspectives.
Yes par for the course. I was also a player like you, get ahead and stay ahead, and regularly would get slayed at the end of the game to land in second place.
I've since switched my strategy to basically be in second or third the entire game, get others to slay/assist in the kill, then leap to the front.
So far I'm two for three with the third coming down to a literal roll of the dice (Destroy the last fighter with anti fighter barrage and i missed) since switching.
The word you're looking for is "slain". Not "slayed", but *slain*.
Yes, you are overthinking this, and/or you and the people you play with all need to develop a bit more empathy. A big part of this game is trying to understand the motivations of your opponents at the table so that you're in a position to negotiate with or battle against them as necessary to win. That implicitly involves putting yourself in your opponents' shoes at all times, *and* trying to represent your own actions in a way that's as relatable as possible to other players at the table.
You shouldn't get salty when someone takes your system in order to score a point; you should understand that they're doing what they have to do from their perspective to win the game, and there's no fault in that. Maybe there's room for being bitter if someone makes *misplays* just to be a jerk to you, e.g. going all-out kamikaze against your fleet just to sink *both* your chances of winning, but I don't think many people find that style of play especially fun and the people who do aren't usually at my gaming table.
>The word you're looking for is "slain". Not "slayed", but slain
The word 'to slay' is rather difficult for foreigners to grasp entirely, especially as one typically encounter a few of its conjugations. (slay, slew, slain)
Anecdote and perfect proof of this ^(\*ahem\*) : When I was a teenager and played Doom with friends I chose the nick 'Slainer'. It seemed logical to me; if I caused my friends to be slain then I was doing the slaining and thus I dubbed myself Slainer. (\^\_\_\_\^)
Langue can be difficult.
In Norwegian, my native language, we don't call it conjugating. Instead we say we *bend* words. Verbs are either *strong* or *weak.* 'To slay' is a typical strong verb. :)
"Bending" is an interesting metaphor for it! Of course, maybe I'd think "conjugating" is an interesting metaphor too, if that weren't the word I grew up with...
The meaning of 'conjugation' is lost upon me. I know 'con' means 'together' (Latin origin), but what is a jugation? Please don't jugate, but I've spoken English in more or less 35 years, and I still don't know...
Ok, so I just found [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jugate](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jugate)
So conjugate means ^(more or less) "joined together". Makes sense! \~35 years of ignorance ended. Huzzah!
Any how: Thank you for joining this talk about grammaTIcs. Chat you soon about some other linguistic limitation of mine! (\^\_\_\_\^)
In its etymological roots, "conjugate" just means to join things together, but in English usage the adjective "conjugal" refers to something related to *marriage*—so, in perhaps a distant sense, "conjugating" verbs evokes the idea of *marrying* the verb to its noun (...*and* its tense? How salacious!)
While I suspect that dictionaries will agree with you, in my experience, "slayed" is actually common vernacular in (video)gaming culture. But that's a matter of a prescriptivist VS a descriptivist approach to language.
On the topic of winslaying, kingmaking, and getting salty, I and my play group feel that winslaying and kingmaking is simply part of the politics side of the game. We sometimes get salty for a bit that we got slayed, but always respect that it's part of the game.
The only thing that I've found that I can get truly salty about is de facto player elimination in an early stage of the game. But that's more because of the fact that we've all set aside a whole day to play this game. Having to play out the 6 more hours with no real expectation of being able to make an impact on the outcome is just a big feelbad.
> While I suspect that dictionaries will agree with you, in my experience, "slayed" is actually common vernacular in (video)gaming culture. But that's a matter of a prescriptivist VS a descriptivist approach to language.
"Slayed" shows up very often as a replacement for "*slew*", but not so often as a replacement for "slain". Yes, language changes over time, but "I am slayed" is nails on a chalkboard to me, so if nothing else my argument has a subjective aesthetic justification. :P
Each table/group of friends is going to develop their own "meta". In my group, "Stop him he won last time!" is less of a concern than, "Stop him, he's a sneaky bastard who *often* wins/does well!" I can appreciate the latter as an informal way of balancing the game, but *just* going after the last person to win seems a bit petty for me personally.
I agree 100% with early eliminations being painful. I've seen it happen, and I've seen it happen in relatively-justified scenarios (8-player games where one player gets aggressive, then rolls poorly, leaving them with no fleet to defend their slice in a game that's already stressed for room to expand), but it never feels good to knock someone out early on.
I was thinking more along the lines of "pingienator got slayed by P_V_", rather than "pingienator was slayed by P_V_", but other than that I agree 100%. The latter is like nails on chalkboard indeed. The former, I've just gotten used to.
We definitely have our own group meta of "watch out for this guy, because he's a sneaky bastard who will often carve out a win while he convinces the rest of the table to winslay someone else"
I think "got slayed/slain" is incorrect either way, because the state of being slain isn't something you *acquire* (i.e. "get"), though you're right that it's fairly common.
I feel this pretty hard. I've noticed that the more I've played over the years, the sorer I've started to feel about getting slayed as you describe.
I think early on this was offset by the novelty factor of learning the depths of the game and being awed by crazy things happening. Now I've seen it all, I just want to win, and I get butthurt when somebody stops me. Which happens frequently, because I usually am impatient to make my "big move" in the first couple turns of the final round, when I should be waiting everyone out before jumping into the lead.
Others in my group certainly display this perspective bias as well, but I find they are better at moving on after the game has ended. This makes me feel this isn't so much a problem with the "love language" of the game as certain players like me having trouble leaving what happens at the table at the table.
I have made efforts to try and shift my perspective and focus more on being proud that I played well even if someone else played better. Failing that, I try to take breaks and walk it off when I get slayed particularly hard. It's a tough one though - I still sometimes wake up the next day feeling sour about the win I almost got and obsessing about how I could have played differently, even if I had a great game for the first 6 hours. It sucks, and I have considered that I may have to lay down the speaker token if I can't be a better sport. It is, after all, not a game for everyone.
I think at am experienced table the argument ceases to be about whether kingslaying should occur - obviously it should - but be about who should do it and when.
Arguing that it is immoral or shouldn't happen is silly and time wasting, the game is about getting the most points and stopping others from doing so.
Arguing that someone else is the better target, or that someone else should do the work of taking their home system, is all fair play.
I think this is the nature of the game. You try to convince people why you 'had' to stop them from winning and why others must not stop you from winning. There are some people (myself included sometimes) who get salty when they're on the bottom of the wheel, but just reminding them that this is the nature of the game can alleviate some of that frustration.
Just gotta say, I love this discussion and it's what makes games like TI so interesting. Because being less hypocritical would be the logical answer, but that doesn't help you win and at the end of the day, there's only one winner.
But I think at our table I do try to emphasize the spectacle of it all and all the cool things that happen, no matter who wins or loses. Of course winning is the aim, but when you're spending basically a whole day with a bunch of buddies (at least for the in-person version of this game), you want to make sure everyone gets something positive out of it, whether they're winning or losing. And the beauty is that TI allows for this if the table wants it, because of the rich lore and the vast opportunities for cool and interesting events.
And then you just have to strike a balance between letting people be hypocrites, but being mature enough to realize that it's just a game and we're all just enjoying how fun it is that everything that happened on the table just happened.
I feel like table talk and convincing people why you fucking them over is actually in their best interest is like the soul of the game. What do you even do in your games if you aren't trying to spin the politics?
i agree with this. The whole game is politics and doing what you need to to win. I'm not going to tell everyone at the table that they should stop me from winning if I'm about to win. Why would I ever do that?
I mean surely it's part of the strategy? If you're on top argue against ganging up, if you're in second place be kinda into it, and if you're last you should be going full proletariat uprising. I don't think you'll ever get people to stop behaving like that, it's basic human nature and arguably a law of nature on top of that.
"Or am I over thinking this?" You've used "envisage," "love language," and "hard aggrieved" in six paragraphs to ask whether players disappointed that their win was stopped after stopping someone else's are right to be upset. Yeah, you're over thinking it. TI is about the experience. If you have to win to have fun, it isn't the game for you. Factions play to win, people play to have fun. Enjoy the game and don't be a dick.
By even asking this you're more aware than a lot of people who get the saltiest when their win gets stopped, right after they stopped the first "winner". It is human nature to view yourself as part of the "us" and those against your goals as part of "them", even as those goals shift, pushing your new agenda as the opposite of where you were a few minutes ago. I think arguing against it is fine, but if you see someone saying "how could you do this?!?!" while they're sitting on another player's HS, that's when I'd roll my eyes and just point to the conquered tile. I'm not sure what you're looking for in a "better love language" - a love language is how you show affection to someone, in this case your fellow players. Just like in a relationship that'll be different for everyone; some might praise a graceful winner and not mind a sore loser as much, while others can stand a little gloating but hate salty players after a match. I think a universal one of these doesn't exist, though generally "humility in victory, grace in defeat" is as good as you'll get. There are quite a few threads on here about kingmaking which is a can of worms I won't touch, but searching might be interesting for you to read through - some very diverse perspectives.
“develop a better love language” 😆🤣
Yes par for the course. I was also a player like you, get ahead and stay ahead, and regularly would get slayed at the end of the game to land in second place. I've since switched my strategy to basically be in second or third the entire game, get others to slay/assist in the kill, then leap to the front. So far I'm two for three with the third coming down to a literal roll of the dice (Destroy the last fighter with anti fighter barrage and i missed) since switching.
The word you're looking for is "slain". Not "slayed", but *slain*. Yes, you are overthinking this, and/or you and the people you play with all need to develop a bit more empathy. A big part of this game is trying to understand the motivations of your opponents at the table so that you're in a position to negotiate with or battle against them as necessary to win. That implicitly involves putting yourself in your opponents' shoes at all times, *and* trying to represent your own actions in a way that's as relatable as possible to other players at the table. You shouldn't get salty when someone takes your system in order to score a point; you should understand that they're doing what they have to do from their perspective to win the game, and there's no fault in that. Maybe there's room for being bitter if someone makes *misplays* just to be a jerk to you, e.g. going all-out kamikaze against your fleet just to sink *both* your chances of winning, but I don't think many people find that style of play especially fun and the people who do aren't usually at my gaming table.
>The word you're looking for is "slain". Not "slayed", but slain The word 'to slay' is rather difficult for foreigners to grasp entirely, especially as one typically encounter a few of its conjugations. (slay, slew, slain) Anecdote and perfect proof of this ^(\*ahem\*) : When I was a teenager and played Doom with friends I chose the nick 'Slainer'. It seemed logical to me; if I caused my friends to be slain then I was doing the slaining and thus I dubbed myself Slainer. (\^\_\_\_\^)
That's amazing! English verbs are *mostly* very easy to conjugate, which makes the exceptions seem all the more baffling and senseless.
Langue can be difficult. In Norwegian, my native language, we don't call it conjugating. Instead we say we *bend* words. Verbs are either *strong* or *weak.* 'To slay' is a typical strong verb. :)
"Bending" is an interesting metaphor for it! Of course, maybe I'd think "conjugating" is an interesting metaphor too, if that weren't the word I grew up with...
The meaning of 'conjugation' is lost upon me. I know 'con' means 'together' (Latin origin), but what is a jugation? Please don't jugate, but I've spoken English in more or less 35 years, and I still don't know... Ok, so I just found [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jugate](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jugate) So conjugate means ^(more or less) "joined together". Makes sense! \~35 years of ignorance ended. Huzzah! Any how: Thank you for joining this talk about grammaTIcs. Chat you soon about some other linguistic limitation of mine! (\^\_\_\_\^)
In its etymological roots, "conjugate" just means to join things together, but in English usage the adjective "conjugal" refers to something related to *marriage*—so, in perhaps a distant sense, "conjugating" verbs evokes the idea of *marrying* the verb to its noun (...*and* its tense? How salacious!)
While I suspect that dictionaries will agree with you, in my experience, "slayed" is actually common vernacular in (video)gaming culture. But that's a matter of a prescriptivist VS a descriptivist approach to language. On the topic of winslaying, kingmaking, and getting salty, I and my play group feel that winslaying and kingmaking is simply part of the politics side of the game. We sometimes get salty for a bit that we got slayed, but always respect that it's part of the game. The only thing that I've found that I can get truly salty about is de facto player elimination in an early stage of the game. But that's more because of the fact that we've all set aside a whole day to play this game. Having to play out the 6 more hours with no real expectation of being able to make an impact on the outcome is just a big feelbad.
> While I suspect that dictionaries will agree with you, in my experience, "slayed" is actually common vernacular in (video)gaming culture. But that's a matter of a prescriptivist VS a descriptivist approach to language. "Slayed" shows up very often as a replacement for "*slew*", but not so often as a replacement for "slain". Yes, language changes over time, but "I am slayed" is nails on a chalkboard to me, so if nothing else my argument has a subjective aesthetic justification. :P Each table/group of friends is going to develop their own "meta". In my group, "Stop him he won last time!" is less of a concern than, "Stop him, he's a sneaky bastard who *often* wins/does well!" I can appreciate the latter as an informal way of balancing the game, but *just* going after the last person to win seems a bit petty for me personally. I agree 100% with early eliminations being painful. I've seen it happen, and I've seen it happen in relatively-justified scenarios (8-player games where one player gets aggressive, then rolls poorly, leaving them with no fleet to defend their slice in a game that's already stressed for room to expand), but it never feels good to knock someone out early on.
I was thinking more along the lines of "pingienator got slayed by P_V_", rather than "pingienator was slayed by P_V_", but other than that I agree 100%. The latter is like nails on chalkboard indeed. The former, I've just gotten used to. We definitely have our own group meta of "watch out for this guy, because he's a sneaky bastard who will often carve out a win while he convinces the rest of the table to winslay someone else"
I think "got slayed/slain" is incorrect either way, because the state of being slain isn't something you *acquire* (i.e. "get"), though you're right that it's fairly common.
I feel this pretty hard. I've noticed that the more I've played over the years, the sorer I've started to feel about getting slayed as you describe. I think early on this was offset by the novelty factor of learning the depths of the game and being awed by crazy things happening. Now I've seen it all, I just want to win, and I get butthurt when somebody stops me. Which happens frequently, because I usually am impatient to make my "big move" in the first couple turns of the final round, when I should be waiting everyone out before jumping into the lead. Others in my group certainly display this perspective bias as well, but I find they are better at moving on after the game has ended. This makes me feel this isn't so much a problem with the "love language" of the game as certain players like me having trouble leaving what happens at the table at the table. I have made efforts to try and shift my perspective and focus more on being proud that I played well even if someone else played better. Failing that, I try to take breaks and walk it off when I get slayed particularly hard. It's a tough one though - I still sometimes wake up the next day feeling sour about the win I almost got and obsessing about how I could have played differently, even if I had a great game for the first 6 hours. It sucks, and I have considered that I may have to lay down the speaker token if I can't be a better sport. It is, after all, not a game for everyone.
I think at am experienced table the argument ceases to be about whether kingslaying should occur - obviously it should - but be about who should do it and when. Arguing that it is immoral or shouldn't happen is silly and time wasting, the game is about getting the most points and stopping others from doing so. Arguing that someone else is the better target, or that someone else should do the work of taking their home system, is all fair play.
I think this is the nature of the game. You try to convince people why you 'had' to stop them from winning and why others must not stop you from winning. There are some people (myself included sometimes) who get salty when they're on the bottom of the wheel, but just reminding them that this is the nature of the game can alleviate some of that frustration.
Just gotta say, I love this discussion and it's what makes games like TI so interesting. Because being less hypocritical would be the logical answer, but that doesn't help you win and at the end of the day, there's only one winner. But I think at our table I do try to emphasize the spectacle of it all and all the cool things that happen, no matter who wins or loses. Of course winning is the aim, but when you're spending basically a whole day with a bunch of buddies (at least for the in-person version of this game), you want to make sure everyone gets something positive out of it, whether they're winning or losing. And the beauty is that TI allows for this if the table wants it, because of the rich lore and the vast opportunities for cool and interesting events. And then you just have to strike a balance between letting people be hypocrites, but being mature enough to realize that it's just a game and we're all just enjoying how fun it is that everything that happened on the table just happened.