The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles"
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1
On the Facebook group, in response to my last blog post, Wm Bryon Duncan asked "Why would you ever take less than the allowed max Frames? The math has never worked out for me for taking less frames. Have I missed something?"
Looking at my data on the games my group has played, the Defender has only won 7 games out of 45. Of those games the Defender has had the least amount of Frames four times and been tied for least amount three times. So that means the Defender wins 16% of the time and 57% of that time they have had the least amount of Frames on the table.
I don't have blog posts for all of those games but here are links to those that I do have.
The game I really want to look at is Sand & Trees because the Defender choice is interesting to me. The game size was "Battle" and I played the absolute minimum amount of Frames possible. I started in first place, dropped to third, then to fifth, and then rebounded to second to finish the game. If I had targeted and destroyed Occam's Spork's Green zombie Frame in the third turn I possibly could have finished the game in first place.
I guess this is a really longwinded way of saying, yes, there is a reason to take the least amount of Frames. I'd really love to see data from other groups and see how it has worked out for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment