Board Game Arena

danielvictor wrote: ↑05 September 2025, 18:56 Mostly,people do.Sometimes,you want to grab a heat or ocean tile bonus from the temperature track,or wait around for more oxygen,a higher temperature,or more oceans,so that you can play a card,and then you don't.

Right. That is my point. If I need to take a second action to accomplish something, I will take a second action.

If I have reason to think taking a second action could result in adverse consequences, I'll take one action and skip the second.

And, if I believe that it cannot possibly make a difference, I'll probably do 2 actions. If I had to estimate, my breakdown is probably 1/3 of the time I do one action, 2/3 of the time I do 2 actions. I do not think this should be sneered at, nor do I think it justifies the insults that have been leveled at me or others who feel the same way I do.

And regardless of how many actions I take, my moves (if I am playing real-time) are made VERY QUICKLY, which defeats the tiresome argument that it significantly slows the game down to take one action. If I play a game in which I took 105 total actions and used 22 minutes of clock in what was a 13-generation game, am I really causing a problem? Do people typically play 13-generation games with less than 22 minutes of total clock used?

In my experience the only thing that people take exception to is one-actioning for the sake of trying to get an advantage you don't actually have. That slows the game down for no reason. I played against someone recently who would do one action all the time hoping to do a sequence of uninterrupted actions after I had passed, but the player didn't actually have that advantage (if we both did one action, I'd be the one to have uninterrupted moves.) Actions on cards have an actual mc value because of their strategic advantage, so if you want to gain the advantage of playing your moves after you've seen what your opponent has done, invest in actions on cards.

Every top player only does one action sometimes. It's part of the game. But doing two moves so rarely compromises someone's strategic position that most of the time it's a smoother experience if both players do two actions.

schulni wrote: ↑05 September 2025, 23:39 In my experience the only thing that people take exception to is one-actioning for the sake of trying to get an advantage you don't actually have. That slows the game down for no reason. I played against someone recently who would do one action all the time hoping to do a sequence of uninterrupted actions after I had passed, but the player didn't actually have that advantage (if we both did one action, I'd be the one to have uninterrupted moves.) Actions on cards have an actual mc value because of their strategic advantage, so if you want to gain the advantage of playing your moves after you've seen what your opponent has done, invest in actions on cards.

So, if it is clear that one player would have the uninterrupted sequence of actions at the end of the generation if both players did the same number of actions, I could see the two players agreeing to match equal numbers of actions.

But, I assume that would not apply when there are obvious other reasons to strategically only take one action?

Also, not all players are going to agree when this scenario occurs. In some cases, both players might have excess cards, but one player has more excess cards than the other. That player might do single actions to put strategic pressure on the opponent, who might have to make difficult choices to avoid giving up the uninterrupted sequence. Maybe squeeze the player into taking one or two slightly undesirable actions.

schulni wrote: ↑05 September 2025, 23:39 Every top player only does one action sometimes. It's part of the game. But doing two moves so rarely compromises someone's strategic position that most of the time it's a smoother experience if both players do two actions.

Well, "sometimes" is rather vague.


But the title of this thread is "Two actions mostly all the time", which implies that single actions are very rare. I would say that "very rare" and "sometimes" are not the same, and that neither one is clearly defined.

Maybe someone can help me by telling me exactly what percentage of the time I am allowed to single action.

Also, you said "every" top player. No. That's just false, since I personally know some top players who do not ascribe to this groupthink.

And, what exactly defines a "top" player"? When I pass a specific Elo, do I become a "top player", and lose my privilege to take single actions when I see appropriate?

And since I am not currently a "top player", as "evidenced" by the numerous insults hurled my way in this thread, does that mean I am exempt from following the "rules" that apparently apply to "top players?

As you can see, these unwritten rules are very confusing. Maybe someone should write them down. Write literally every instance in which a single action is permissible. That way, we "inexperienced" and "unskilled" players do not accidentally violate the "social contract" groupthink method of playing.

Thanks in advance to anyone kind enough to write down these unwritten rules. I am hoping that once I get to 600 Elo and 1200 games played, I will miraculously come to comprehend these complex notions, since apparently at 501 Elo and 600+ games played, I am not bestowed the wisdom to inherently grasp this concept.

Do one action when there's an actual strategic point to it, otherwise do two actions. That's it.

Agreed with Schulni. The response to him was hilarious.

* Elo is important, but that's not the only criteria. You wouldn't believe the amount of game top players have competed at the highest level across various settings and modules,*

The other day I was observing two well know players' game, because the respect I have, even a huge blunder I have to hold my take because I thought maybe it's a !! and it's simply something I haven't seen before. And the game was still razer sharp afterward.

At the very top level every top player's match up are studied and reviewed against the meta data. There are level to this and you have not practiced in.

Do two actions per turn is actually a good training tool, also try win a game against 300 without MS, good practice run to hit the next skill level.

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

You can argue for a long time about the opposition of gaining an advantage and increasing the quality of the game, all I can say is do as you want and the opponent himself will decide whether to give you a red thumb.

In my experience, on bga, unlike on other platforms, you very rarely get chat spammed about oneactioning.
[1 time in 39 games versus 3-4 times in 20 games]

Here is the problem: In 2 player, there is no advantage to ever doing 2 actions except for when you want to place a tile combo or grab 2 milestones at the same time that are contested.

There is a clear advantage to only doing 1 action that is constantly in effect. Namely that you can see what the other does and respond accordingly.

If in 2 player you are ever playing 2 actions while not having a good reason to, you are playing suboptimally. This makes 1v1 matchups devolve into some weird game of chicken, where both players are not doing anything substantial until the other is forced to make their good moves or pass, as not to give away information unncessarily.

This behavior / tactic is often not deciding in who wins of course, but it severely slows down the game to a crawl and for me personally it ruins the experience.

I think a good variant option would be: maximum 1x action passing per era. Then you still keep the option to use it strategically without hindering the game pace unnecessarily.

Magicnerd wrote: ↑08 September 2025, 06:45 I think a good variant option would be: maximum 1x action passing per era. Then you still keep the option to use it strategically without hindering the game pace unnecessarily.

I would be in favor of this. It's not bad when a player 1-actions one time, but when it's half the game, it's very tiresome.

I would also be in favor of the Sell Patents standard project being a free action (does not count as an action). I think this would greatly improve the endgame.

It's pretty impressive how insulting and belittling the "elite" players are on this forum and it's all within the rules. I guess if you're polite with your put downs it's fine, well fine if you have the ELO to back it up. New people are judged poorly but high ELO players can get away with a lot. I know I'm not allowed to have an opinion since I haven't played TM on this platform. So please keep talking down to new players, just be passive aggressive and you're within the rules. If you tell people they are dumb and not at your level just be sure to do it nicely. Remember we are just simple folk with no understanding of how the congnosescenti play so try to explain it in small words we might grasp.