Unusual game logic for determining going first or second?

[ifasoldt]

Has anyone else noticed that they seem to get really unusual runs of going first or second. IE, my last 11 games, I've gone second (which is rather frustrating ). That's a 1 in 2048 chance, which, is actually not crazy high, but it's still remarkable. I've noticed that I seem to go on runs-- lots of firsts, then lots of seconds, etc instead of the expected more random pattern one would expect.

I was wondering if there's something odd in the code that makes streaks like this expected?

[Ceaseless]

Has anyone else noticed that they seem to get really unusual runs of going first or second. IE, my last 11 games, I've gone second (which is rather frustrating ). That's a 1 in 2048 chance, which, is actually not crazy high, but it's still remarkable. I've noticed that I seem to go on runs-- lots of firsts, then lots of seconds, etc instead of the expected more random pattern one would expect.

I was wondering if there's something odd in the code that makes streaks like this expected?

What makes a more random pattern? Any particular combination of 11 games with going first or second would be 1/2048. It would be just as unusual to see things like FSFSFSFSFSF as opposed to FFFFFFSSSSS. As you play lots of games you'll run into all sorts of combinations.

If you ask BGA, it would seem like 80% of BGA goes second 90% of the time. It's a mystery where all the going first went.

[altair3op]

Who is going actively first all the time does not complain... It's the same case for me... Lot of times being second is frustrating.

[Ceaseless]

Who is going actively first all the time does not complain... It's the same case for me... Lot of times being second is frustrating.

And they also don't tend to notice all those times they go first as much either. So even if they went first more often than second, one decent set of going second games later and they think they're going second all the time.

[ZenVee]

All that's left to be said is that the game is bad.

Literally meant for 2 players, but whoever plays first wins 66% of the time given close to equal elo ratings.

[frankenStain]

All that's left to be said is that the game is bad.

Literally meant for 2 players, but whoever plays first wins 66% of the time given close to equal elo ratings.

consider it to be the game "with training wheels". The actual game being with both expansions, where this issue does not exist !

[lefuture]

what would be interesting to know is the win rate of the player who starts the game FIRST.
I believe this can be a big advantage

[cskaresz87]

Look, the whole game is crooked. Like all the sudden I have I think a 12-game losing streak. 2 weeks ago I had 11 games won in a row. The whole thing is absurd, people have zero clue and end up winning. They want to play green, I kill it, then they want military, off. They have no resources, and yet, they win.
Complete bollocks, the whole game is simply sooooo random. And you, first player has a huge advantage, unless the game throws 5 resources in the first row.

[Ceaseless]

Look, the whole game is crooked. Like all the sudden I have I think a 12-game losing streak. 2 weeks ago I had 11 games won in a row. The whole thing is absurd, people have zero clue and end up winning. They want to play green, I kill it, then they want military, off. They have no resources, and yet, they win.
Complete bollocks, the whole game is simply sooooo random. And you, first player has a huge advantage, unless the game throws 5 resources in the first row.

If the game is so random, how are there numerous 400+ players yet so many who can't even pass that rating range? There seems to be several divides in skill. The really random BGA games don't reach those levels at such depths.