aaronvollrath wrote:one thing about these escalating games is that a player can essentially move on to the next round by playing not to win the game. i guess this adds an additional element of strategery to the mix, but it is kind of a loop-hole (though a valid interpretation of the rules as they currently stand). as an example, player x can just deploy every round and not attack to obtain a card thus making himself an undesirable target; because, in my opinion, cards are probably a (or the) key to winning an escalating game. as an undesirable target (i.e., without cards), player x can basically set himself up to be one of the last four remaining players in a majority of the games he is in. i'm not sure if others think this is an issue, but this practice could be attenuated by putting more emphasis on a win than 2nd-4th place. from a mathematical standpoint i don't know how complex this would need to be, but if there was a scale like 12-3-2-1 for 1st-4th place respectively this might punish those who essentially don't play to win the game and reward those who do play to win.
This has been discussed at length in MBII to check out the discussion click on the link below
Map Blaster II: The Redemption I'll boil it down if you do not have the time to read it1. Scoring will remain the same
2'. It is a legit strategy to not take cards so that you are undesirable to take out
This strategy will not get you to the final round (if you look at the track record of the players reaching the final round none of them have used the strategy to get there. they were all very aggressive and smart with there moves)
I have more thoughts on the subject bit it's to late to think about tonight
