In 4p, one player (most of the time p3 or p4) has no choice except to starve to keep the game competitive, or else it's a lost game for him. p1 starving is almost an inferior strategy, while p2 starvation can have merits in certain boards. Even then, it's not a guarantee that starver will win because starvers ignore green cards which allow others to grab green sets for much cheaper price, and everyone will fight for meeple and building multipliers which forces the starver to overpay. 10 point penalty per nonfeed round is just about right in 4p.
However, in 2p mode, -10 penalty is too harsh. I think I flat out starve in under 0.1% of my 2p games (in very rare board set ups) and I have a higher win rate against starvation. I actually don't think I starved a single game in my last 500 Stone Age games because it's such an unplayable strategy in high elo play. The main reason it's very easy to play against starvation is because a majority of cards are useless for starver that they need the near perfect card set up and decent dice to pull it off. Most notably, market cards (cards that gives one thing to everyone based on outcome of the dice) are neutral in early game but significantly favors nonstarver in mid/late game. As a nonstarver, I just let the useless cards sit there and end the game as soon as possible by drilling buildings that you won't be able to recoup the -10 investment loss from starvation. If you don’t take those cards, then you won’t be able to see the goodies like 2x meeple and help me dig through the buildings. If you take those cards then you give me a free resource and it helps me drilling buildings.
I only play base game 2p, which is how arena is played. I speak in the position as a 7x arena winner before I retired from arena. I also finished first place in Master of Masters round robin tournament (out of 16 700+ Elo players), finishing 12/15. I believe 10+ straight arena champions participated in that tournament. I have to concede that in certain expansion settings, starvation becomes a strong strategy.
If you are into competitive boardgame play, first thing you need to do is identify strong strategies and learn to gravitate toward those. Just because a strategy seems strong doesn’t mean you need to outlaw it, because then you are playing a different version of the game. But in this case, starvation isn’t even the dominant strategy.
Here’s my most recent game against starvation: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=482090204. I used the drilling building strategy and ended the game in 10 rounds (average game length for normal games is 13.5 rounds). Game should have ended in 9 rounds but my opponent no takes the last building, dragging a hopeless game by 1 more round. I once finished a game against a starver in 8 rounds .
However, in 2p mode, -10 penalty is too harsh. I think I flat out starve in under 0.1% of my 2p games (in very rare board set ups) and I have a higher win rate against starvation. I actually don't think I starved a single game in my last 500 Stone Age games because it's such an unplayable strategy in high elo play. The main reason it's very easy to play against starvation is because a majority of cards are useless for starver that they need the near perfect card set up and decent dice to pull it off. Most notably, market cards (cards that gives one thing to everyone based on outcome of the dice) are neutral in early game but significantly favors nonstarver in mid/late game. As a nonstarver, I just let the useless cards sit there and end the game as soon as possible by drilling buildings that you won't be able to recoup the -10 investment loss from starvation. If you don’t take those cards, then you won’t be able to see the goodies like 2x meeple and help me dig through the buildings. If you take those cards then you give me a free resource and it helps me drilling buildings.
I only play base game 2p, which is how arena is played. I speak in the position as a 7x arena winner before I retired from arena. I also finished first place in Master of Masters round robin tournament (out of 16 700+ Elo players), finishing 12/15. I believe 10+ straight arena champions participated in that tournament. I have to concede that in certain expansion settings, starvation becomes a strong strategy.
If you are into competitive boardgame play, first thing you need to do is identify strong strategies and learn to gravitate toward those. Just because a strategy seems strong doesn’t mean you need to outlaw it, because then you are playing a different version of the game. But in this case, starvation isn’t even the dominant strategy.
Here’s my most recent game against starvation: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=482090204. I used the drilling building strategy and ended the game in 10 rounds (average game length for normal games is 13.5 rounds). Game should have ended in 9 rounds but my opponent no takes the last building, dragging a hopeless game by 1 more round. I once finished a game against a starver in 8 rounds .