Forum
Social understandings of higher table play
|
Aiden wrote
at 12:50 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT
Fuck you muthafuka.....
Just kidding. Skrum suggested we have a little discourse about the psychological aspects of the game. My first point is that this is a unique game in that it is tactical left brained, random like life, and social right brained. Plenty has been said about the tactical which is actually understood by all levels. Nowing how to connect and recognising others most predictable moves. Much has been said about the luck aspect, grudgingly spoken with ill will and paranoia. But I think we can all agree that the randomness is not out to get anyone and that just like life, it isn't truly random. I believe it has been stated that there is a code or frequency that if a person were to crack into, even if it were completly intution, this is very much like a real life spiritual connection. But my interest is in the dynamics of group communication and how they affect the game. I am a relativly new player who has had the fortunate experience of playing well enough to see both the lowest level playing and the best of the best. I can safely say that there are tremendous differences in the social atmosphere of the levels. Players at the 10 tables do not communicate. They are out for themselves and fight in a more tribalistic, local pattern. What upper level players would call random attacks or suicide or meltdowns happen more frequently here as less interest in the game causes players to lose patience quickly or make far riskier moves. The 200 table level is where the players begin to recognize previous players and social bonds are formed. also players become more invested in the game and their standings. Now that random attacks are fewer meaning there is more awareness to others around them. Cooperation happens more frequently. Players are willing to take second or third instead of just playing for domination. But at this level many are more willing to leave a game if they are doing poorly. Now the 1 k games are very different. These players have been playing eachother for several months now. Unspoken bonds that have been created are around but very difficult to see. Chatting is almost nessisary as deals are made in seconds that will end in another few turns. Players are far more interested in keeping thier points though. So the liminal point where friendship meets self preservation becomes quite frustrating. Ok that all for now . please leave soom good thoughts. and remember... Fuck you muthafuka |
|
|
Aiden wrote
at 1:30 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT OH, and the term truce has al but disappeared in replacment with "blue, I'm cool you can go north" this is very different in that it is non binding after about 5 rounds but it is very effective for those who use it. I call it a non agression pact.
|
|
kdicefreak wrote
at 2:24 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT unspoken bonds?!?! did you mean PGA?
|
|
|
Aiden wrote
at 2:28 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT not necissarily an alliance as much as a shift in tactics BECAUSE of friendships. two players with this unspoken bond will take each other on, but are much more interested in doing so as a last resort tactically. As you can see, the idea of trucing has mutated along with the new rating system...
|
|
119Legend wrote
at 5:46 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT I was only expecting the first bit :P
Nice post |
|
JKD wrote
at 6:28 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT Five round non aggression pacts are awesome. If they're finally becoming common again then that's great. But usually when I say something like that it pretty much ends up as a come from behind 1-2 truce victory. I watch players who say that and make a decision if I should consider their truce permanent or not
|
|
wishbone wrote
at 12:54 AM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT its rnd, wicked!, powerslug, kwizatz, mad willy, montecarlo, integral, kehoe, comik, aer, grunvagr, IVE seen the type before look out for all these players, and dont get tricked by their "pre game unspoken bonds"
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 6:31 AM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT dont forget Zosod. i pga with him too. maybe one day i will have the pleasure of pgaing with you wishbone. you seem like just the quiet naive type that i can take advantage of... i mean... work together with.
|
|
_o/_ wrote
at 7:47 AM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT ^^^^
that's especially funny because wishbone is the true leader of the cabal. |
|
§ilverfox wrote
at 5:22 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT I don't particularly admire or look up to the 1000+ players. The vast majority of them got to where they are via social networking rather than superior tactical skills.
The tactical skill of the game interests me more than the social, but then I'm a geek like that I guess. :) It is still an interesting discussion. I like the point about the word "Truce" disappearing. I have noticed that too at the higher tables. There is definitely a tactical advantage to keeping one's options open. That's one bone I'll throw the 1000+ club for tactics. What really interests me is the comparison you could make to government. It is the most popular/wealthy people who get elected. Not necessarily the brightest. So it is with Kdice. The most popular/likeable people will form alliances easier and thus do better even if they are tactically inferior to some other players. It occurs to me that the 1000+ club could take offense to that last paragraph. I certainly don’t mean any offense. Just trying to move the discussion forward. |
|
lesplaydices wrote
at 5:32 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT ^ That's simply not true. Take, for example, myself - 5000 points and basically only uses the chat box to make stupid jokes and call people gay for 5v5'n me or wusses for not 5v5'n me.
|
