I agree with you Buddy. It's not emotional to destroy somebody's game after they destroy yours. There has to be a price and it needs to be considered in the risk/reward calculations. Sometimes you get a 100% rational player that still tries to win and sometimes you get somebody that will fight you to end even after it's obvious you're not ahead. Like buying a dev, you don't know which you're going to get until after you do it and it might not be worth it at all.
This is a pretty poor precedent being set from this game and Buddy. Questionable plows and blocks/steals happen all the time in Catan - It's part of the game. The tilting player is adopting a victim mindset instead of learning how to deal with adversity. The amount of win-rate this player is losing simply for this mindset and behavior is massive, and if Buddy wants to educate this community, he should be acknowledging that unless he truly feels that's "optimal" play. The numbers don't lie - Green has a 20% win-rate after 54 games while black has a 33% win-rate after 185 games. To say it's justified to act like green is strategically short-sided and an excuse for game losing toxic behavior. The threat of being plowed to 62 is always there and green made a conscious decision to forgo it to capture a 3 hex spot. That was a decision green made and he assumed the risk of potentially losing 62. No one is entitled to anything in Catan, and sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don't. In the future, take responsibility for your situation and learn to outplay in tough spots. Green could have proactively worked out a deal to mitigate the risk if he wanted but he didn't. I understand being frustrated to lose a spot that was part of your plan but does that mean you give up? No. You course correct and find new avenues to work with the board and bring you back in the game. If you want to be a losing player, continue to follow that emotional mindset of throwing your game over a single settle spot and destroying the social experience for the entire table. I encourage any of you who agree with green's decision to throw his game to come to any credible tournament on or offline and replicate that behavior. You'll lose a ton of games and make even more enemies.
@@dandydrew I get what you're saying but I still disagree with you. If you're interested in why, look up the prisoner's dilemma, the foundation of how to win in cooperative games and life. One of the four major components in a successful outcome is knowing that screwing somebody has consequences. It's interesting you talk about this mindset hurting the Catan community but it's actually the opposite. If this was the last game of Catan ever played, then it's in every player's interest to do whatever it takes to win. But it is a community and there will be more games. The worst thing would be for black to win because then he's going to keep doing it because it worked! The fear of consequences it's critical for cooperative games and life. Finally, it's a low blow to demand green take responsibility for his situation but claim black was justified in complaining about how green played after the plow. Doesn't black also own his situation? He isn't entitled to anything either . . .
@@JasonMHughesYou’d be speaking very differently sitting across an in person table with either me or Drew. The mentality of throwing / acting like a child over a rob / block / poor trade only happens on this toxic platform because people feel safe behind their keyboards with anonymity. Try that shit on an actual board in a serious tournament and you’ll be humiliated real quick. I’m guilty of doing this myself. In the heat of the moment, tensions rise and you make sub optimal moves. But Drew is ultimately correct. You are making excuses to justify poor and toxic behavior, reasoning it’s “because of what they did to me” rather than looking at rational and logical solutions to get out of difficult problems. When you are ahead in Catan, killing the social dynamic will make you lose. If you are behind and throw the game, making comments like these players do, how is it logical to get upset the other two players don’t want to help you? EOD Catan is a social game at its core. People can play individually and be good at certain skill sets, but until you master board presence, table dynamics, and basic human empathy, you will never be a GM at this game.
@@JasonMHughes This brings up an interesting point since I have extensively studied the prisoner's dilemma. Yes, long term mutual cooperation will yield the best results for players in the game but that assumes that all the players have the intention of playing the best optimal moves and willing to show signs of cooperation in the first place. Players like Green don't have interest in doing that and when you compare his attitude and gameplay, you clearly see he consistently achieving sub-optimal results which has given him a 20% win-rate in a game where 25% is average/ breakeven. Emotional players justify their actions under the guise of strategy, but their real motivation is emotional satisfaction. Nothing about the way green is playing is showing any signs or interest in cooperation but immature toxic rage that ruins the balance and social dynamic of the game. We can use game theory models all we want but in reality and practice, the toxic behavior is nothing more than an excuse to have a tantrum over a board game. If a revenge player's goal is "long-term cooperation," his moves would reflect proportional responses and de-escalation efforts. Instead, you’ll often see disproportionate actions that hurt themselves as much as their target, just like the game here. If Buddy is a fan of this tit-for-tat style of play, I would encourage him to post more of his games where he exhibits relentless revenge seeking behavior since it's considered optimal play to some of you. He doesn't post them because he knows deep down, it's not a good look and it's completely unenjoyable to watch... not to mention almost always ends in a loss for him and the target. But at least, he gets the emotional satisfaction of "getting even" in a family board game.
@@shadesonbroadway I agree, I would be different in person at a tournament and Buddy probably would be too. This game was neither of those. We can all agree there is a difference between in person games and online, and in tournaments and in single games. In this game, it doesn't matter if Buddy finishes at 3, 5, or 9, his loses some of his rating. You make a big jump in saying retribution is an "excuse to justify poor and toxic behavior". There is proportionality to consider. Nobody is advocating for a holy crusade for every slight and setback, but this was game ending. If Black had made themselves so strong they didn't care about consequences, then they should do it, but they destroyed another person's game for a slight gain. It wasn't a good deal for black or green. Sure, in a tournament you could take the "high road" and grind out a few extra points, but even that would require working with black who proved he couldn't be trusted.
yeah black definitely shot themselves in the foot by doing that plow, I would have done same as green in that situation. Funnily enough, one time when I was playing with my friends, I got DOUBLE plowed by one of them at the start of the game, 2nd plow also barely doing anything for them. Naturally I decided to destroy their game by buying devs and only blocking them for the entire game, even to the point of feeding other players just to get dev card materials. Somehow still ended up winning that game, think I pulled a nice mono and even managed to get one plow back on that same friend xD.
Hate players that plow just for the sake of plowing. Blue tried to do this and failed, black did the same thing to green. In both cases it made no sense to their game and no sense defensively. Just a dumb decision.
I have to disagree slightly, the 62 is better for black (road prospects by circling around it + city via 2 roll + after 5 wheat settle there is only desert left). I also do think green's reaction is emotional. Rational would be to either leave the game (save lifetime) or try to still have a chance by asking for support from the table for army/63 settle and hope for mono pull to clutch it in the end. I dont think it is unreasonable to assume
it's so marginally better it's not worth any risk of green retaliating. one extra dot of wheat. one extra dot of ore. and going to the 5 wheat is just as good if he wants to sneak road. i rarely plow where i destroy someone's game and if i do it's for a benefit that outweighs the downside of possible retaliation. if he had just asked for a nb or something to not plow, i'd argue that would even be better than plowing
"Rational would be to either leave the game (save lifetime)" -- How is this rational? Leaving the game is the archetypical emotional reaction. It's called rage quit for a reason. In my book it's also unsportsmanship to leave a game because of rage. I've never done it, and never will. I always finish the games I start, even when I have mathematically zero chances to win. Saving lifetime is physically impossible anyway. You can choose how you spend your time, but you can't choose not to spend it. You can't store lifetime in a bank for later use. Black choosing to destroy Green's game was a calculated risk. Calculated, but risk nonetheless. And when you take risks, sometimes you are rewarded with failure. Black should take ownership of his failure, and not swift the blame to Green. Reporting Green was an inconsequential action. It had zero effect on Green's ability to play games in the future, and zero effect on Green's willingness to behave exactly the same under the same circumstances.
The 62 isn't better for road. If anything it is worse because it caps black. Black should have taken the 3:1 on the 11. It opens up another quick settlement and the 3:1 is more beneficial than some extra wheat.
It's better for him but what green did makes sense to me. What incentive does he have to play seriously? He legitimately never wins after that plow, so why should he care to give black and blue better chances against buddy? I think it's irrational to kill someones game and then beg them to help you win
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I agree with you Buddy. It's not emotional to destroy somebody's game after they destroy yours. There has to be a price and it needs to be considered in the risk/reward calculations. Sometimes you get a 100% rational player that still tries to win and sometimes you get somebody that will fight you to end even after it's obvious you're not ahead. Like buying a dev, you don't know which you're going to get until after you do it and it might not be worth it at all.
This is a pretty poor precedent being set from this game and Buddy. Questionable plows and blocks/steals happen all the time in Catan - It's part of the game. The tilting player is adopting a victim mindset instead of learning how to deal with adversity. The amount of win-rate this player is losing simply for this mindset and behavior is massive, and if Buddy wants to educate this community, he should be acknowledging that unless he truly feels that's "optimal" play. The numbers don't lie - Green has a 20% win-rate after 54 games while black has a 33% win-rate after 185 games. To say it's justified to act like green is strategically short-sided and an excuse for game losing toxic behavior.
The threat of being plowed to 62 is always there and green made a conscious decision to forgo it to capture a 3 hex spot. That was a decision green made and he assumed the risk of potentially losing 62. No one is entitled to anything in Catan, and sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don't. In the future, take responsibility for your situation and learn to outplay in tough spots. Green could have proactively worked out a deal to mitigate the risk if he wanted but he didn't. I understand being frustrated to lose a spot that was part of your plan but does that mean you give up? No. You course correct and find new avenues to work with the board and bring you back in the game.
If you want to be a losing player, continue to follow that emotional mindset of throwing your game over a single settle spot and destroying the social experience for the entire table. I encourage any of you who agree with green's decision to throw his game to come to any credible tournament on or offline and replicate that behavior. You'll lose a ton of games and make even more enemies.
@@dandydrew I get what you're saying but I still disagree with you. If you're interested in why, look up the prisoner's dilemma, the foundation of how to win in cooperative games and life. One of the four major components in a successful outcome is knowing that screwing somebody has consequences.
It's interesting you talk about this mindset hurting the Catan community but it's actually the opposite. If this was the last game of Catan ever played, then it's in every player's interest to do whatever it takes to win. But it is a community and there will be more games. The worst thing would be for black to win because then he's going to keep doing it because it worked! The fear of consequences it's critical for cooperative games and life.
Finally, it's a low blow to demand green take responsibility for his situation but claim black was justified in complaining about how green played after the plow. Doesn't black also own his situation? He isn't entitled to anything either . . .
@@JasonMHughesYou’d be speaking very differently sitting across an in person table with either me or Drew. The mentality of throwing / acting like a child over a rob / block / poor trade only happens on this toxic platform because people feel safe behind their keyboards with anonymity.
Try that shit on an actual board in a serious tournament and you’ll be humiliated real quick.
I’m guilty of doing this myself. In the heat of the moment, tensions rise and you make sub optimal moves. But Drew is ultimately correct. You are making excuses to justify poor and toxic behavior, reasoning it’s “because of what they did to me” rather than looking at rational and logical solutions to get out of difficult problems.
When you are ahead in Catan, killing the social dynamic will make you lose. If you are behind and throw the game, making comments like these players do, how is it logical to get upset the other two players don’t want to help you?
EOD Catan is a social game at its core. People can play individually and be good at certain skill sets, but until you master board presence, table dynamics, and basic human empathy, you will never be a GM at this game.
@@JasonMHughes This brings up an interesting point since I have extensively studied the prisoner's dilemma. Yes, long term mutual cooperation will yield the best results for players in the game but that assumes that all the players have the intention of playing the best optimal moves and willing to show signs of cooperation in the first place. Players like Green don't have interest in doing that and when you compare his attitude and gameplay, you clearly see he consistently achieving sub-optimal results which has given him a 20% win-rate in a game where 25% is average/ breakeven. Emotional players justify their actions under the guise of strategy, but their real motivation is emotional satisfaction. Nothing about the way green is playing is showing any signs or interest in cooperation but immature toxic rage that ruins the balance and social dynamic of the game.
We can use game theory models all we want but in reality and practice, the toxic behavior is nothing more than an excuse to have a tantrum over a board game. If a revenge player's goal is "long-term cooperation," his moves would reflect proportional responses and de-escalation efforts. Instead, you’ll often see disproportionate actions that hurt themselves as much as their target, just like the game here.
If Buddy is a fan of this tit-for-tat style of play, I would encourage him to post more of his games where he exhibits relentless revenge seeking behavior since it's considered optimal play to some of you. He doesn't post them because he knows deep down, it's not a good look and it's completely unenjoyable to watch... not to mention almost always ends in a loss for him and the target. But at least, he gets the emotional satisfaction of "getting even" in a family board game.
@@shadesonbroadway I agree, I would be different in person at a tournament and Buddy probably would be too. This game was neither of those. We can all agree there is a difference between in person games and online, and in tournaments and in single games. In this game, it doesn't matter if Buddy finishes at 3, 5, or 9, his loses some of his rating. You make a big jump in saying retribution is an "excuse to justify poor and toxic behavior". There is proportionality to consider. Nobody is advocating for a holy crusade for every slight and setback, but this was game ending. If Black had made themselves so strong they didn't care about consequences, then they should do it, but they destroyed another person's game for a slight gain. It wasn't a good deal for black or green. Sure, in a tournament you could take the "high road" and grind out a few extra points, but even that would require working with black who proved he couldn't be trusted.
Thanks for the regular uploads again goat‼️ keep going🙏
yeah black definitely shot themselves in the foot by doing that plow, I would have done same as green in that situation. Funnily enough, one time when I was playing with my friends, I got DOUBLE plowed by one of them at the start of the game, 2nd plow also barely doing anything for them.
Naturally I decided to destroy their game by buying devs and only blocking them for the entire game, even to the point of feeding other players just to get dev card materials. Somehow still ended up winning that game, think I pulled a nice mono and even managed to get one plow back on that same friend xD.
Thanks for posting buddycatan
Thanks for the upload! Buddy is the GOAT
“Brother look at the port that green is continuing to, and you rob me. Inexcusable” is the message of blue you started figuring out
If you knight first at 12:20 you couldve city
Hate players that plow just for the sake of plowing. Blue tried to do this and failed, black did the same thing to green. In both cases it made no sense to their game and no sense defensively. Just a dumb decision.
13:17 it’s so annoying when it gets out of focus 😂. I just refresh the page and it loads back in to its original view
do you still play poker?
@@aidancole5611 nope
ruclips.net/video/iZlpsneDGBQ/видео.html
I have to disagree slightly, the 62 is better for black (road prospects by circling around it + city via 2 roll + after 5 wheat settle there is only desert left). I also do think green's reaction is emotional. Rational would be to either leave the game (save lifetime) or try to still have a chance by asking for support from the table for army/63 settle and hope for mono pull to clutch it in the end. I dont think it is unreasonable to assume
it's so marginally better it's not worth any risk of green retaliating. one extra dot of wheat. one extra dot of ore. and going to the 5 wheat is just as good if he wants to sneak road. i rarely plow where i destroy someone's game and if i do it's for a benefit that outweighs the downside of possible retaliation.
if he had just asked for a nb or something to not plow, i'd argue that would even be better than plowing
"Rational would be to either leave the game (save lifetime)" -- How is this rational? Leaving the game is the archetypical emotional reaction. It's called rage quit for a reason. In my book it's also unsportsmanship to leave a game because of rage. I've never done it, and never will. I always finish the games I start, even when I have mathematically zero chances to win. Saving lifetime is physically impossible anyway. You can choose how you spend your time, but you can't choose not to spend it. You can't store lifetime in a bank for later use.
Black choosing to destroy Green's game was a calculated risk. Calculated, but risk nonetheless. And when you take risks, sometimes you are rewarded with failure. Black should take ownership of his failure, and not swift the blame to Green. Reporting Green was an inconsequential action. It had zero effect on Green's ability to play games in the future, and zero effect on Green's willingness to behave exactly the same under the same circumstances.
The 62 isn't better for road. If anything it is worse because it caps black. Black should have taken the 3:1 on the 11. It opens up another quick settlement and the 3:1 is more beneficial than some extra wheat.
It's better for him but what green did makes sense to me. What incentive does he have to play seriously? He legitimately never wins after that plow, so why should he care to give black and blue better chances against buddy? I think it's irrational to kill someones game and then beg them to help you win
"reported" after a massive plow is just not understanding the game. Black truly the emotional player on that