i made huge DM theory mistakes in my brainstorm, column and comments. i shall now address some of the incorrect points i made and correct them. reason for such mistakes was mainly due to pondering over another game at the same time. i would like to go into more detail in the future, but at this time i'm still testing applying the theory.

offensive play is best: wrong. the average game will actually be mostly defensive. you need to defend and even run if you don't have more item value than your opponent and playing offensive often leaves your opponent a chance to gain control of the higher value items when in control.

a cut off: wrong. explained above.

you don't predict you opponent: right and wrong. predicting your opponent is a winning strategy, but predicting your opponent is something you can't rely on because it's exploitable. i have some ideas on strategies but i don't want to go into detail yet.

the mistakes weren't exactly difficult to spot on retrospect, but the comments made in the column really got me thinking.

FFA's have really caught my attention recently what with the GGL FFA and me hitting some random FFA public servers. often they're viewed as chaotic and unskilled, is this unfair? are FFA's a lost and even hidden blessing for DM?

on the competitive side of things, the best players will win, they may not win every map, but they will still stand out above the worst players. some may make the argument that no strategy is needed, this simply can't be true due to the items having different value. granted there will be more luck due to the chaotic nature, but is this necessarily to a degree a bad thing?

on the opposite end, we have the public casual side of FFA. the mode is durable and ideal for public servers, you can join the game at any time and is (arguably?) fun due to the chaos allowing even new players to get frags.

it's the heart of DM for a reason, it fits the game perfectly and with it's flexibility, is it overlooked as a competitive alternative to duel, TDM and CTF too often?