Kit approached the game with the number one priority of protecting Coral as much as possible! Coral was first, so he needed to think about Coral first-- which meant that they weren't allowed to play any of their stones on themselves. Second priority was ensuring that the damage Coral distributed didn't kill any teams, which is why he suggested the "one attack stone on each team, the teams that we play double attack on definitely get defense stones, and the rest of our defense stones go on teams we want to protect." Black stones weeeeere an option since protecting Coral was his first priority but it was not a desired one and therefore not brought up until very late in the game, And Kit reeeeeeally didn't want to use those black stones, so when no one else wanted to use them, he was relieved!
With all of those goals in mind-- i.e. protect Coral, minimize damage, try not to kill any teams-- he approached the game logically, levelheadedly, and evenhandedly. IT WAS SURPRISING FOR ME HONESTLY, but he's come a long way from arguing for self-sacrifice in trauma games and was as efficient and detached about it as possible to avoid too much mental anguish over the decision.
He should have asked how many stones it would take to kill a team, sob, since the answer had the chance of changing his strategy (had he known 10 stones would result in death he would have done something different since if every team played one attack stone on every team, everyone would have died). BUT OH WELL, I was pleased with his logical levelheadedness anyway!
Fallout was what made him feel hella guilty and awful, not the actual decision process, it's great :')
TELL ME HOW GAME AFFECTED APPLE'S FEELS FOR SAPPHIRE.
no subject
Kit approached the game with the number one priority of protecting Coral as much as possible! Coral was first, so he needed to think about Coral first-- which meant that they weren't allowed to play any of their stones on themselves. Second priority was ensuring that the damage Coral distributed didn't kill any teams, which is why he suggested the "one attack stone on each team, the teams that we play double attack on definitely get defense stones, and the rest of our defense stones go on teams we want to protect." Black stones weeeeere an option since protecting Coral was his first priority but it was not a desired one and therefore not brought up until very late in the game, And Kit reeeeeeally didn't want to use those black stones, so when no one else wanted to use them, he was relieved!
With all of those goals in mind-- i.e. protect Coral, minimize damage, try not to kill any teams-- he approached the game logically, levelheadedly, and evenhandedly. IT WAS SURPRISING FOR ME HONESTLY, but he's come a long way from arguing for self-sacrifice in trauma games and was as efficient and detached about it as possible to avoid too much mental anguish over the decision.
He should have asked how many stones it would take to kill a team, sob, since the answer had the chance of changing his strategy (had he known 10 stones would result in death he would have done something different since if every team played one attack stone on every team, everyone would have died). BUT OH WELL, I was pleased with his logical levelheadedness anyway!
Fallout was what made him feel hella guilty and awful, not the actual decision process, it's great :')
TELL ME HOW GAME AFFECTED APPLE'S FEELS FOR SAPPHIRE.