FTA and 2(3) actions on first turn

[Xpander]

(09-10-2012 02:59 PM)wonderpug Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 01:33 PM)Xpander Wrote:  I saw a few people saying this in various threads as proof of FTA...I'm not sure what this proves if anything. Let's just say for the sake of argument that someone did do this. P1 passes as you say and now P2 also passes. The game has now essentially been reset and both players start with 10 wits instead of 5. There you go, a counter strategy.

I'm not following your logic here. You're saying the game can be equally balanced for a start with 5 wits each and a start with the second player getting 10 wits. How can it be both?

What I was saying there is that if both players pass, then the game is reset. All that happened was nobody did anything. There is no bonus 5 wits. Both players get an equal number of wits to work with. I was referring to something Joggies said in his post. I understand why people use that as an example, since p1 essentially gets to respond to p2 with 5 more wits if he saves up. My point was that by saying that, you're essentially ignoring all kinds of other things like board position, build capacity per turn and various other things specific to the game...essentially oversimplifying a complicated issue.

It's entirely possible that there is FTA. I'm not saying there isn't like Garcia seems to think. What I'm saying is that it's not proven. There's a big difference there. As I mentioned earlier, the only proven case has been addressed.

It's also entirely possible that people just like to be in control and don't like to react or be surprised, so going first feels better. They dont bother to develop a more defensive strategy for p2 and play aggressively as if still p1. That results in a loss and a perception of unfairness. This could also explain queue stacking. Let's not forget that this is a game and playing first may just be more fun for people. So just assuming that queue stacking somehow proves that high level players have decided FTA is proven is just shortsighted. Now there is no concrete evidence to prove this either, but it is a viable theory that can be tested and should be considered in the discussion.

I just think that suggestions on how to fix a problem are a little premature before it is even confirmed that there is a problem. That's why a case by case analysis is the most logical response. Sorry, I guess I should've been more clear in my intent. I'd like the discussion and this thread to refocus on specific situations that may be unfair. Things that are a lot easier to demonstrate, instead of a theoretical flaw in the game's design. That's a lot more constructive and something the designers will respond to, as shown by this last patch.