Reavaluation of piece values

@VAOhlman what kind of behaviors have you seen, that were not beneficiary for the players themselves? Can you give some examples? Maybe we should reevaluate the pieces having these behaviors in mind (trying to prevent them).

I'm not sure if there would be any way to prevent these, but some things that are not beneficial that I have seen:
1) Holding a grudge: This behavior would be rational if one was playing a long series of games against (including) one player. But in the kind of games we currently play the idea of 'green did me dirty so I am going to go against him even when tactically unsound...'.
2) Failing to see balance of power issues: as a long time player of the game 'diplomacy' the biggest issue I have seen in four player chess is the failure of the other players to start going against a player who is doing well.
3) Making trades. I think this is a holdover from regular chess. A trade is theoretically neutral in two player, so it can easily be done for other reasons, such as a positional or tactical advantage. However poor players in four player tend to over trade, not realizing that this costs both their opponent and them against the other two players.

Diplomacy is a great game!

 Trades are fine so long as enough people are watching the balance of power.  Or at least, they are once one person has been eliminated.  Once one player is eliminated, the two weaker players need to keep each other alive to take down the big guy, so you can afford to make trades so long as you're not leaving one player strong enough that he can take down the other two.  I've played a 3-player version OTB and it works well, even playing to last man standing; you might even sac a piece just to get out of the cross hairs of the other two.

When there's four people still alive, though, nobody really needs your help against the big guy, so there's no incentive to not eliminate you.  So weakening yourself by making trades is risky, as you could become a target.

M,

I'm not saying there are never times for trades, far from it. Tactical reasons can justify pretty much anything.
What I am saying is that too many of the poorer player seem to think of trades as they do in two player chess: that I gain as much as I lose. In two player chess when black and white both lose a knight, then the game is still even. In four player chess when red and green both lose a knight... blue and gold are now *up* a knight against both of them.

I'm not sure I agree with your idea that keeping the balance of power isn't important when there are four players. But I will agree it is MORE important when there are only three.

I wasn't saying that keeping the balance of power doesn't matter with four players.  Rather, I was saying that no one player is essential for maintaining the balance of power.

In a three-person game, you can't afford to burn material to eliminate one of the other players unless the last player is weak enough that you can then turn on him and beat him too.  In a four-player, you can, so long as it doesn't make you so weak that the stronger player can easily eliminate you despite the interference of the other player.  You only need three players to maintain a balance of power, so the fourth player is disposable, and if you can kill him, there's no incentive not to do so - and so you need to secure your position to avoid giving people a chance.

@VAOhlman I was talking about behaviors that are intentionally not beneficiary. For example blundering pieces is certainly not beneficiary, but as long as the blunders are happening out of carelessness we are OK with that (IMHO).

Grudge is something I have experienced only once, and still won the game. I don't think it's a big deal. Certainly not big enough to justify imbalancing the game by valuing the strongest pieces the same as the weakest ones!

>>Certainly not big enough to justify imbalancing the game by valuing the strongest pieces the same as the weakest ones!
I wasn't suggesting such. Actually I think queened pawns should be worth nine. I was just proposing that maybe somebody thought they should be worth one because of the 'I'll give a queen to you if you give one to me.' Or even, I suppose, someone thought it wasn't fair that people could actually gain in points that they can accidentally lose to someone else?
I've never read the original rationale, so I'm just whistling in the dark here

Oh, OK then. I am not aware of the original rationale either. My own guess is that whoever designed this game is a fan of the Crazyhouse variant, where promoted pawns are becoming pawns again when captured!

It's also the normal rule in bughouse.