Two actions mostly all the time please

[brh2113]

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.

Yeah agreed, in Steam this is a major concern that would add substantial time to the game, since the turn animation passing is so slow. I think this is why the 2-action meta is so strongly ingrained in the high level competitive Steam community, since they'd rather pack more gameplay into their evening session than play ever so slightly more optimally.

On BGA realtime it's a very minor issue since the animation is instantaneous. On BGA turn-based this type of play will add days to the game duration, though.

[FrankJones]

On BGA realtime it's a very minor issue since the animation is instantaneous. On BGA turn-based this type of play will add days to the game duration, though.

Agreed regarding turn-based.

Some games I prefer turn-based (Games with a small number of turns, some of which might take 19 minutes or two hours to find the perfect move). Other games, such as Tfm, I play real-time, because for me that makes the most sense. Even when I play turn-based TFM, such as a friendly mode game against a friend, or the alpha version of Colonies, it often ends up being essentially real-time when we realize we are both online at the same time.

[PleaseAGB1]

Hi all,

I am reviving (in the old days of the internet, we'd call it 'necro'ing') this thread to ask for opinions about this whole two actions business.

I have played a few folks, especially higher level, who seem to feel there should be a 'social contract' in T Mars (and, germane to this discussion, T Mars played here on BGA) that two actions should be played 'most' of the time.

There's plenty of good reasons for and against this 'social contract', this thread has 12 pages worth of opinions on this. My opinion lies with some of the higher rated players who posted (I think it was Corbz?) - the game T Mars as written in the rulebook confers some advantages to the first player and the second player. Adding a 'social contract' to modify player behaviour is, (again opinion here like everyone else's posts) changing these rulebook defined advantages and, thus, playing a different game.

For my part, If the second player chooses to one action, I don't get offended. In an ideal world, before we start any game we have a chat about our social expectations for the match. If I agree to two action 'most of the time' then I will play to that effect, and expect the other person to do so. I don't think I'd ever agree to play two actions every time. That would severely nerf some strategies and be a wholly different game indeed (mediocre cards like search for life, power inf, tardigrades suddenly become overpowered? no thanks).


I will close this post by saying - I enjoy playing this strategy game to match strategies to the RNG inherent in the game. I have low, basically no, interest is 'playing games that are shorter' for less strategy. For my part, I want to have my opponent play their best strategy against me, and in the same manner, I want to play the best strategy. There's plenty of strategy, mind games in T Mars. Does the player have sabotage? Asteroid? Consortium? 1 actioning opens up the bluffing or real prospect of these cards plenty. I wonder if other platforms (heroku app?) have such a history of social contract two actions (or, presumably, it could be hard coded into the UI).

Hope to hear many other opinions on this, of course including ones that differ wildly from my own.



ps - A big of an aside: It seems weird to me how many folks post opinions on how much better real time games are to have time to think but then a large subset of those folks post opinions on two actions should be the social contract. These seem to me strange; but of course, everyone has their opinions.

[xspuipuke]

Heroku had an option you could set when setting up the game to force every player to 2 actions.

[R-Cane]

I agree with OP that 2 actions per turn should be used most of the time, or at least be used as an option you can enable. Then anyone can decide wether to join a game with said social contract or not, but if you do you need to comply.

[RoyalRook]

Thanks for reviving a topic, this is a good public announcement opportunity. As you improve and climbing the skill trees, you will gravitate toward the two action system among the top players naturally. Why? Because it's beyond just a gentlemen's agreement, top players understood intuitively when the situation is mutually beneficial for both to do two actions, and if one back out, you simply one action back. Generally, the follower(2nd to act in a generation) in a top ranked game will not single action on their first turn to preserve the tempo, they could be it's generally understood not to do that, not just it's looked down on, but because then you are opening yourself up for your opponent to steal a tempo back on the next gen, and sloooow down the rest of the game for honestly no good reason. Once again...it's the same guys hahaha.

Game On! Try to win this season.

[FrankJones]

For my part, I want to have my opponent play their best strategy against me, and in the same manner, I want to play the best strategy. There's plenty of strategy, mind games in T Mars. Does the player have sabotage? Asteroid? Consortium? 1 actioning opens up the bluffing or real prospect of these cards plenty. I wonder if other platforms (heroku app?) have such a history of social contract two actions (or, presumably, it could be hard coded into the UI).

Hope to hear many other opinions on this, of course including ones that differ wildly from my own.

The optimal strategy is to take one action unless there is a reason to take 2 actions.

Of course, this will get you blacklisted by the elite cool club that has decided it's their business to enforce a "social contract" upon us lesser skilled people who aren't good enough to intuitively understand a complex concept such as when it is "mutually beneficial for both players to do 2 actions".

I wonder if one of these kind gentle elites can explain to me how something in a one-versus-one game would be "mutually beneficial". Or why that would ever be desirable. Generally speaking, in a PvP competition, my goal is to play in a way that is beneficial to me and detrimental to my opponent's outcome. "Mutually beneficial" strategies might be better applied to cooperative games such as Pandemic or Hanabi.

But, that's just my opinion. People should take however many actions they wish.

But, nobody should feel pressured to take the number of actions dictated by an opponent.
I would think harassing a player into taking a different number of actions than the player would otherwise take would be a reportable offense.

[drsteelhammer]

I can explain this one! Humans have many needs and desires, and winning at tfm is just one of them. For example, shooting my opponent with a gun while playing tfm increases my win chances significantly. But as staying alive and healthy is desired by many, most of us choose to live in a society that doesnt not condone such behaviour. One could say, not shooting each other is mutually beneficial during a competetive game of terraforming mars.

Also, anyone who is so good at terraforming mars that they found out that 1 action/turn is mostly optimal are just a teeny tiny step away from finding out what their opponents optimal strategy is. Especially in turn-based this is just a lose lose.

[RoyalRook]

Ever heard of Dunning–Kruger effect? After 12 pages of discussion, it's established that 2 action per turn is a common practice among top players, the top players will do anything to win, but apparently they missed the hidden benefits of single actions *

You are not gaining benefits, you just telling yourself that, *

*moderator edit: please keep to a polite discussion and do not insult or belittle others

[FrankJones]

I can explain this one! Humans have many needs and desires, and winning at tfm is just one of them. For example, shooting my opponent with a gun while playing tfm increases my win chances significantly. But as staying alive and healthy is desired by many, most of us choose to live in a society that doesnt not condone such behaviour. One could say, not shooting each other is mutually beneficial during a competetive game of terraforming mars.

Shooting an opponent is not a valid action within the game of TFM, and is a crime in most places. This is not a good analogy.

Especially in turn-based this is just a lose lose.

How so?