How much unspontaneous is too unspontaneous?

[INTJMom]

You wouldn't do well on a pvp server in any MMO's, I bet.

I suppose I would probably agree with you if I knew what any of that was.

 

[raz]

I am P. I have to plan to plan to plan to plan to plan.

What if you're planning a night where you decide which movie to watch that night? Is that planning to be spontaneous?

I suppose I would probably agree with you if I knew what any of that was.

Imagine a large scale game where you're trying to get things done in the game. Now imagine 500 other people doing the same thing you're doing. 250 of those other people are on the opposite side of you. While you're trying to get things done that don't involve attacking other players, they can come along and kill you, making you take an extra 10 minutes to do what you were doing. Then they can do it again! They can even keep it up for hours to make sure you're not enjoying yourself.

 

[INTJMom]

...
I have also lied that the game was just an innocent socialization it was actually small tournament without prize. But this wasn't what they had in mind.

I'm sure many people would have answered differently if you had said it was a contest. I know I would have.
In a contest, each person is expected to do the best they can to prepare.
Your actions do not seem so extreme in preparation for a tournament, even if there is no prize.

 

[INTJMom]

...
Imagine a large scale game where you're trying to get things done in the game. Now imagine 500 other people doing the same thing you're doing. 250 of those other people are on the opposite side of you. While you're trying to get things done that don't involve attacking other players, they can come along and kill you, making you take an extra 10 minutes to do what you were doing. Then they can do it again! They can even keep it up for hours to make sure you're not enjoying yourself.

Oh yeah. Hate that.

 

[Jack Flak]

I used to work endlessly on refining my Magic decks, but that was something I planned to play with regularly...It wasn't a single game. And hey, I even won a tournament among 11 friends.

 

[tenINsFJ]

When I was seriously about tennis:
I had a binder that had every opponent I had ever played, with the results of the match, their strengths/weaknesses, what I did, etc.. and before every tournament I'd stalk the internet draws and find out my opponent and create strategies to beat them. It was sort of intense.

Like Jack Flak, back in the day, I used to consistently reorganize my decks to make the best combinations possible to win. I'd sort through them religiously all day. Never won any tournaments, but beat all the neighborhood kids, hah.


Edit; I'm known for taking the 'fun' out of games, but in my mind, I'm making it fun.. by doing what the objective is of a game.. to win. Hahaha that sounds so terrible.

Soph year of college at the dorms, I got beat in billiards by a guy in the Union room. I walked out of the room, went to Barnes and Nobles, bought a billiards book and read it thoroughly, highlighting all of the important passages, and memorizing all the techniques and different actions on the ball. Then I put that into 6 hours of practice everyday. By mid year, no one beat me and I made sure it. How sad.

Same with chess. I was already a pretty decent chess player, and I used to show no mercy.

And Mario Kart. And Mario Party. And Super Smash Bros. And ping pong.

Over the years of hearing "learn to lose or no one's going to play with you," I sort of learned.

 

[nolla]

What if you're planning a night where you decide which movie to watch that night? Is that planning to be spontaneous?

Yes. Or, you go to a vacation and decide that you make no plans, go with the flow. So, that is planned spontaneity. Basically we are only talking about when decisions are being made. If you are spontaneous, you make fast decisions now. If you aren't, you make decisions before. So, no one is purely spontaneous.

 

[raz]

Yes. Or, you go to a vacation and decide that you make no plans, go with the flow. So, that is planned spontaneity. Basically we are only talking about when decisions are being made. If you are spontaneous, you make fast decisions now. If you aren't, you make decisions before. So, no one is purely spontaneous.

Oh, there's some zen for you.

 

[Cimarron]

Antisocial one, question for you:

Would you ever try going into a strategy game with only half-done planning (or less), and then try to make plans as reactions to events? Do you think you could enjoy that?

Naturally, I like to plan out strategy games, too. (not from the start, since that would take far too long) But I do get a real thrill when I can formulate plans in mid-game as a reaction to other players' plans, and see mine eventually crush them.

The time it happened to me, three other guys who always play a specific game invited me and one other guy to play against them. They didn't think I had played the game much, so when my team started winning, they went sore-loser on us and ended the game. I think they were used to always winning.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think that I owe everbody an explanation about what actaually happened.
Since my post were social experiment.

Three of us made a deal that we will play a game with a princilpe "let a best one win". But since the other two are much more E they started a discussion like - I will win , I will win, are you sure , of course, . .. ...... .. . . .

I was silent in all of this, but I started to think
"How about giving those two a suprise. It looks like that they could use one"

So I did what I did.

They were not actually angry, it is just that my actions were strange to them. Since people here don't plan much and that is why it caused shock but there was no anger behind it.

Paradoxally, those two actually like me exactly because of this skills and they are closest thing a have to friendship.


But in general people don't play board and video games with me in general since I am
quote:"You are machine set to win and nothing we do can change that"


What actually isn't good since no one wants to play, what is again understandable.
Because of what I did to other people.(without planning such as this)
On the other hand if I let them win then both sides are just wasting time and I just want a challange.

Antisocial one, question for you:

Would you ever try going into a strategy game with only half-done planning (or less), and then try to make plans as reactions to events? Do you think you could enjoy that?

Of course, I do that without problem.

Actually, in many games you can't have a master plan before you start since many games are very random. So you must plan as you go.


It is just that in this version of RISK allows this kind of thinking to be successful. Game allows alliance against me so creators were thinking that this will always balance the situation. But I have planned so much that I have managed to find a hole.


As I have said I can explain my actions/strategy.

 

[FDG]

If that was a tournament, then I see nothing very strange with your actions. People play computer games they like all night long, for example, so it's not particularly strange to spend one night studying a game you enjoy.

 

[ptgatsby]

As I have said I can explain my actions/strategy.

I don't see anything wrong with what you did. You took it more serious, but it's not exactly a social situation.

Having played ladders and tournaments in a lot of games, people do take games really seriously. If you were doing it to win at all costs in a social situation... that might an issue. Doing it for a tournament of any type is very reasonable (assuming you aren't making kids cry rule-lawyering ). In between is... debatable, and the only thing that decides it is context.

The only thing that got you in trouble was letting your ego take over. Never talk about how you do it. It's always natural ability and luck. Always.

 

[Cimarron]

Of course, I do that without problem.

Actually, in many games you can't have a master plan before you start since many games are very random. So you must plan as you go.


It is just that in this version of RISK allows this kind of thinking to be successful. Game allows alliance against me so creators were thinking that this will always balance the situation. But I have planned so much that I have managed to find a hole.


As I have said I can explain my actions/strategy.

True, but what I mean is would you put yourself at a disadvantage on purpose, by not planning from the start even though you could have--like for Risk, for example? It could be a nice challenge to see what you're capable of....

Just wondering.

 

[Richard0612]

I could probably see how overthinking and obsessively planning could suck the fun out of a game, although trying to find holes in various different strategies could be fun (or maybe that's just me...). For example: two players each take turns using a certain strategy (perhaps agreed on beforehand to give some ideas?) and the other does all they can to find holes in said strategy.

 

[Darjur]

If you did that and then told me of that, I'd most likely demand a rematch and I'd try my best to beat you until I beat you. I'd probably end up planning up till 4am myself.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The only thing that got you in trouble was letting your ego take over. Never talk about how you do it. It's always natural ability and luck. Always.

I can't say it was a tourmanent it was something between.

But I could not hide that I had a plan my strategy has so much unlikely moves that is hard to believe that I have figured them up during the game.
I exactly knew how much soldiers I need for some noncombat actions.


You can't watch how I am systemically erasing them from the board and then say that this is just a bad luck.

It is normal that you capture 2 or 3 territories per turn and my ratio was
12-15 territories per turn and all of it because I have found the hole.

The reaction in the first turn was already "Eaa... I don't like this!" and in third turn was already obvious that I am going to erase them both.

The main reason why they were not mad was because hey knew all along that something is wrong.


As for
"You are machine set to win and nothing we do can change that"

That is a part of another story.

 

[ptgatsby]

But I could not hide that I had a plan my strategy has so much unlikely moves that is hard to believe that I have figured them up during the game.

I know the game pretty well because we used to host mini tourneys at a local university... not so much 2010 in particular, but a range of them including 2010.

You can easily hide your edge in the game... you chose not to.

You can't watch how I am systemically erasing them from the board and then say that this is just a bad luck.

Then you are missing the point. Right now, no matter how you rationalize it, you are bragging on what you did. That's where your strategy fails... you replaced localised tactics, successful ones, in place of the overall strategy. It's not being strategic at all... that would require long run planning, directional control... none of which you are doing.

You are right - you can't watch how you systemically destroyed them and not know that you put effort/etc into it. You execute good tactics - command over a situation... but now you ask why this tactical win wasn't strategic. It's because you put no consideration into anything other than the battle you were in.

Hence why I said that you won the battle but lost the war.

This happened quite a bit in the MTG playtesting groups. The theory goes that you build the decks up and play a bunch of games. It serves two purposes - you practise against the standard decks and get to point out mistakes/alternatives to each other, and you get to refine the deck.

There are players that get into these games intending to win. They fight and fight, don't help others, don't go over refining, rule lawyer and everything else. Those people tend to be pushed out of the play testing groups - it's the same thing. They should be thinking about the tournaments coming up, not winning this particular game.

Keep your eye on what your strategy is. It currently shows that you care more about showing off than anything else - strategy, because that's the direction you chose to take. In a tournament, crushing someone is... well, good strategy if you are aiming to take the top spots (depending on the bracket system, anyway). Context - the strategy is all in the context of what you are achieving, always.

 

[Virtual ghost]

True, but what I mean is would you put yourself at a disadvantage on purpose, by not planning from the start even though you could have--like for Risk, for example? It could be a nice challenge to see what you're capable of....

Just wondering.

In this version of risk if you place yourself in disadvantage you will lose, the game is simply built that games are won before they even start.
For the most part.


But in most games things are much more random and I am still good at it, so planning a disadvantage is hard and pointless.
Not to mention that people who played something with me notice when I am placing myself in disadvantage to make things more interesting.
I am not saying this because I am narcissoid but because other person gets annoyed when they see that I am not playing properly.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I know the game pretty well because we used to host mini tourneys at a local university... not so much 2010 in particular, but a range of them including 2010.

You can easily hide your edge in the game... you chose not to.



Then you are missing the point. Right now, no matter how you rationalize it, you are bragging on what you did. That's where your strategy fails... you replaced localised tactics, successful ones, in place of the overall strategy. It's not being strategic at all... that would require long run planning, directional control... none of which you are doing.

You are right - you can't watch how you systemically destroyed them and not know that you put effort/etc into it. You execute good tactics - command over a situation... but now you ask why this tactical win wasn't strategic. It's because you put no consideration into anything other than the battle you were in.

Hence why I said that you won the battle but lost the war.

This happened quite a bit in the MTG playtesting groups. The theory goes that you build the decks up and play a bunch of games. It serves two purposes - you practise against the standard decks and get to point out mistakes/alternatives to each other, and you get to refine the deck.

There are players that get into these games intending to win. They fight and fight, don't help others, don't go over refining, rule lawyer and everything else. Those people tend to be pushed out of the play testing groups - it's the same thing. They should be thinking about the tournaments coming up, not winning this particular game.

Keep your eye on what your strategy is. It currently shows that you care more about showing off than anything else - strategy, because that's the direction you chose to take. In a tournament, crushing someone is... well, good strategy if you are aiming to take the top spots (depending on the bracket system, anyway). Context - the strategy is all in the context of what you are achieving, always.

I don't know any other way to say something about my position. So it looks that I am bragging. Believe me I have a lot of things to bragg about but that is not my interest here.


I totally understand what you are saying and I don't do this every week.
I did it only once. Usually I already know what I will do in sitation like this
but I don't plan the detail like in this case. I have created this thread exactly because it is so extreme case.

I always know in what general direction I will go, but you must be adapting yourself all the time to actually have a good and efficient strategy and I do that.


In video games this is even more expressed then it is in the board games and I am more into video games then board games.

 

[Kasper]

I have no interest in planning it’s not really enjoyable unless I wing it but I do enjoy playing strategy games with my INTJ friend, it’s hella competitive, we make each other think about every possible outcome before moving which neither of us are really used to when playing others, a wrong move will be noticed. Usually I’ll lose interest first and mentally give in so she kicks my ass but not before one hell of a challenge.

That said I prolly wouldn’t wanna play against you