Two actions mostly all the time please

[primrose1234]

You don't get the main point.

Lets say player 1 has 2 animals to activate and 2 card draws.
Player 2 has one animal one microbe two card draws.

Both can perform 4 one actions or two double actions to maintain the equilibrium. There is nothing smart about player 2 one actioning when player 1 two-axtioned, it's just breaking an unspoken agreement.

This is a fallacy and a complete failure to understand the natural dynamics of the game. The first player to act in a gen has major advantages by being able to take two priority actions in a row that generate excellent scoring potential. This is ALWAYS more advantageous in the grand scheme of things then winning priority to end a generation (the natural advantage offered to second or later positions as a counterpoint to the advantage offered to first position). Even in the situations where winning prio to end a gen unimpeded is powerful it's often largely powerful because you can end unimpeded in a fashion that sets you up to take 2 critical actions the following gen when you move INTO first position to make the best use of the massive advantage afforded to the player who is first to act. There is no "unspoken" agreement, there is the natural and intended competitive advantages afforded to each position and normal competitively optimized play pattern is, fundamentally, ALWAYS, for first position to take 2 actions and secure their natural and intended advantage and second position to take one action to attempt (not even definitively acquire, just attempt to set up) to secure second positions natural and intended advantage. That IS the expected normal pattern of play for optimal competitiveness.

You did not refer to my example, but describe a different scenario.
Please read my posting again and try to understand what I say. Should I explain it again?

[FrankJones]

Can't we put this discussion to bed?

Back in the steam days, single-action was annoying because even though the game was real-time, both players saw all animations for each player's move. Here on BGA, in real-time, when my friend and I play real-time, we single action and it goes lightning fast, n problem. (Obviously we take 2 actions a lot too, when needed, or when it serves no purpose to take single-actions).

I do understand that in turn-based games here, single-actions can be annoying. but, most of my turn-based games basically become real-time because once we both realize we're at the computer at the same time, we play as though it's real time.

I have often been burned tactically by taking a double action when I did not need to.
If people are upset that single actions make turn-based games a frustrating slog, that's a flaw with playing the game turn-based, not a flaw with the people doing the single actions.

I have been slowly warming up to the idea of playing more games turn-based, but mostly those are games with 10-20 total turns and in which one or two turns might require hours of thought to find the winning move. (Pente, Aquatica, maybe Azul, etc.)

[jaymc1130]

You don't get the main point.

Lets say player 1 has 2 animals to activate and 2 card draws.
Player 2 has one animal one microbe two card draws.

Both can perform 4 one actions or two double actions to maintain the equilibrium. There is nothing smart about player 2 one actioning when player 1 two-axtioned, it's just breaking an unspoken agreement.

This is a fallacy and a complete failure to understand the natural dynamics of the game. The first player to act in a gen has major advantages by being able to take two priority actions in a row that generate excellent scoring potential. This is ALWAYS more advantageous in the grand scheme of things then winning priority to end a generation (the natural advantage offered to second or later positions as a counterpoint to the advantage offered to first position). Even in the situations where winning prio to end a gen unimpeded is powerful it's often largely powerful because you can end unimpeded in a fashion that sets you up to take 2 critical actions the following gen when you move INTO first position to make the best use of the massive advantage afforded to the player who is first to act. There is no "unspoken" agreement, there is the natural and intended competitive advantages afforded to each position and normal competitively optimized play pattern is, fundamentally, ALWAYS, for first position to take 2 actions and secure their natural and intended advantage and second position to take one action to attempt (not even definitively acquire, just attempt to set up) to secure second positions natural and intended advantage. That IS the expected normal pattern of play for optimal competitiveness.

You did not refer to my example, but describe a different scenario.
Please read my posting again and try to understand what I say. Should I explain it again?

No need to explain it again, I’m referring directly to the example you provided and previously addressed it at great length and in great detail on page 7 of the comments.

First player taking 2 actions and later positions taking one IS the competitive default. Taking 2s is not, and is fundamentally sub optimal. Complaining about players playing properly from a competitive perspective is a silly complaint to lodge. Yes, it’s nice when both (or all) players have 10+ actions to take to proceed 2 by 2 until last position needs to declare intent to win priority by taking only 1, but this is not the normal competitive play pattern.

[FrankJones]

I generally take this approach:

On each turn, I ask myself, "Is my strategy best served here by taking 2 actions or 1?", and then I play accordingly. I expect my opponent to do the same, and I have no objection to my opponent taking one action or two, as he or she deems appropriate.

I have lost games by carelessly taking the wrong number of actions. I do not wish to have it happen again. I'd like to be 700+ someday. I'm not sure whether I'm good enough. But, I won't get to 700 if I allow some sort of predefines "proper way to play" dictate how many actions I take.

There are just so many scenarios where it can be beneficial to take only one action, and not just the obvious ones such as TR track bonuses.

[primrose1234]

(...)

If I will ever play the 100.000 Dollar TFM tournament, I will surely one action every turn and laugh at those who don't.

The same when I play world cup final and an opponent forward will score, I will attack his legs from behind, risking anything for him and me.

This does not apply when I play with friends for fun on an online platform.

Oh, and you still didn't get I refer to stall actions, not the opening of a generation.

[jaymc1130]

(...)

If I will ever play the 100.000 Dollar TFM tournament, I will surely one action every turn and laugh at those who don't.

The same when I play world cup final and an opponent forward will score, I will attack his legs from behind, risking anything for him and me.

This does not apply when I play with friends for fun on an online platform.

Oh, and you still didn't get I refer to stall actions, not the opening of a generation.

When the actions happen is irrelevant. Same goes for the reasoning behind them being one or two. The only thing that is important is fundamentally correct sequencing for competitive purposes and while this can fluctuate from moment to moment the generalized correct sequencing is always 2 for first position, later positions take 1, and then play proceeds one by one. That’s the nature of the game. Attempting to enforce 2 by 2 at all times is a fundamentally non competitive approach. Attempting to enforce 1 by 1 at all times is a fundamentally non competitive approach, and both are unnatural. The part of your perspective that is totally invalid is that there is some sort of “breach of an unspoken agreement” and this has, in recent times, tended to the the argument used by players in first position who are looking to, essentially, “cheat” by falsely guilt shaming opponents and is the exact type of behavior your perspective lends itself too. I think most people will find such unsportsmanlike notions unappealing, particularly when they have zero basis in reality to begin with.

I’m certainly not going to tell you how to play with friends and family.

Nor am I ever going to be upset with you for attempting to play your best competitive line within the rules of the game, whatever it may be and for whatever reasons you may have.

What I will do is (attempt to) prevent the spread of misinformation that has shown a tendency to lead to unsportsmanlike behavior and less enjoyable games because of said unsportsmanlike behavior.

[primrose1234]

By claiming to define the nature of the game. How modest!

[jaymc1130]

By claiming to define the nature of the game. How modest!

Certainly not. That simply is the nature of the game. It’s been derived if anything, and not by a singular person by any means. The rules of the game dictate what the optimal competitive play patterns happen to be. It’s fine to impose artificial structure to games you play, but house rules are just that.

[ft029]

I feel you have to play against someone who only ever plays one action at a time, to understand just how time-consuming and annoying it is. I don't think I understood this entire thread until I played such a game today, and the game dragged on 15+ minutes more than it should have. It is their right to play one at a time, and I can live with it, but it is still unfun.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm okay with one action in crucial moments (and trading one action back and forth for a short time). But when someone spends literally the entire game doing 1 action at a time, it gets painful. Prisoner's dilemma sort of situation.

[FrankJones]

I feel you have to play against someone who only ever plays one action at a time, to understand just how time-consuming and annoying it is. I don't think I understood this entire thread until I played such a game today, and the game dragged on 15+ minutes more than it should have. It is their right to play one at a time, and I can live with it, but it is still unfun.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm okay with one action in crucial moments (and trading one action back and forth for a short time). But when someone spends literally the entire game doing 1 action at a time, it gets painful. Prisoner's dilemma sort of situation.

When playing real time, it adds a netlabel amount of time per turn. TI say it adds 15 minutes doesn't add up, in my estimation. the players take a total of 150 cations. Does it really add 6 seconds per action?

Click a card, instantly click "skip second action, next player's turn. I don't see how this adds more than a second or two at most. It's not like on steam in the old days where both players had to watch both players' animations.