Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ozle]

After playing several 4 player games recently and having gone last in them all due to a random drawing technique and not winning any, despite feeling I had the superior deck in all of them (I came second in all of them, withing 5 points and with playing less turns always) I couldnt help but think of a way to fix it would be this:

If someone buys the last province or 3 pile, everybody who has not had as many turns as that player, gets another turn. Then the game ends.

Obviously it wont let you buy that last province, but it does help mitigate a bit (so you can buy other victory cards)

Doubt ill ever play it, but just wanted to throw it out there for the people who play 4+ game

[ChocophileBenj]

True, I always wondered why didn't people naturally have the same number of turns ? (even in 2P games !)

[liopoil]

In my first game we all just assumed this was the rule and we played this way. It made complete sense.

[Drab Emordnilap]

With this variant, the first player can never end the game.

Sure, they can trigger the endgame ahead, hoping that they'll win. But that guy in last seat, he can just END THE GAME while he's ahead. No extra chances for you, player 1.

Sure, you can say, "Hey, player 1, that's what you get for being player 1. You get that first player-advantage; let me have the hammer." But hey, I'm player 1, and I don't always have the advantage. Some boards, Mr. last player even has a distinct advantage. You want to give him the hammer, too?

I say, we take turns being player 1, and it'll all work out eventually.

[Ozle]

Yes, thats the idea...the first player cannot end the game on HIS turn, so the second player gets the same amount of turns.

Its not really for two player, more for 4+ where it's more pronounced.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Yes, thats the idea...the first player cannot end the game on HIS turn, so the second player gets the same amount of turns.

Its not really for two player, more for 4+ where it's more pronounced.

I know what the idea is, I'm just saying that being able to end the game with a sure win is a strong thing to do. This variant takes that power away from all but one player. What about all those games where you three-pile by buying out the lase couple curses (or whatever) for that squeaker victory? Now only the last player has that option.

[Ozle]

I think by continuing to ask that question your not quite understanding what I am trying to achieve with this suggestion even though you say you do.

Its DESIGNED so the first player cannot end the game on his turn. Yes this means that he cannot squeak three piles and so on, but thats the intention, because the 2nd player will still get another chance due so he can have the same turns.

The first player can still designate when the game will end, he can choose to end it when everyone else has had the same number of turns. What it does is take the power away from the first person to end the game with him having more turns that the other 3 players, which is the inherent first player advantage that this variant was trying to offset...

I know the first player being able to end the game with a sure win is a strong thing, that's what I am trying to counter.

Those games where player 1 three piles out is the same inherent unfairness due to playing an extra turn. He can still pile out if he wants, but the other player gets the chance to have the same number of turns.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I know the first player being able to end the game with a sure win is a strong thing, that's what I am trying to counter.

I'm saying that ANY player being able to end the game with a sure win is a very strong thing. Your suggestion gives this very potent advantage, which is normally available to all players, to only one player.

With rules-as-written endgame rules, everyone is playing the same game. The way to win the game is to end the game, on your turn, when you have more points than all the other players. With your suggested endgame rules, now you as first play and I as last player are playing different games. I, as last player, am playing the game from before; I want to make the game end on my turn, as long as I have more points than you do. It doesn't matter whether I have 1 more point or a dozen. You, as first player however, are playing a very different game. If you ever want to win, you have to trigger the game end (I obviously would never do so unless I had more points). However, you can't just trigger the game end when you have a greater score than I do; you have to trigger it with enough extra score to outlast any points I can generate on my last turn with me having the knowledge that it's my last turn. I can trash all my Mining Villages, Bishop my Gold freely, Apprentice my Possessions, whatever; I know that no matter what I do to my deck, it won't matter, as long as I get enough points to beat you right now.

Player 1 will never get that opportunity. If you as player 1 go all out one turn, trash all your Mining Villages, etc., but don't actually pay the cost of triggering the endgame, then I can just... not end the game on my turn? I can build my deck instead, score some points, but not trigger the endgame either. I never have to end the game except when it will guarantee me the win, but you do have to, or you can never actually win the game.

I certainly don't disagree that going first is an advantage, and going last in a 4 player game is a large handicap. I also recognize that the vast majority of my Dominion has been 2 player games. I have played with this variant in a 4 player game or two, though, and I know what I personally dislike about it. Clearly our opinions differ, and that's okay with me. I certainly don't want this to look like some sort of vendetta or anything.

[Ozle]

Yes I know what your saying, and it doesn't sound like a vendetta. But everything you are arguing for is largely irrelevant

This is a variant suggestion to take away first player advantage by giving everyone the same number of turns.

Im not saying its better than the original way, I am not saying its completely perfect, im not saying it is completely fair to any player and Im definitely not suggesting it should be the de facto rule.

It is deliberately designed to stop player 1 ending the game, so your saying that it means player 1 cannot end the game on his turn and listing all those scenarios and things don't really have an effect here, because that's what its designed to stop.

If a first player doesnt trigger the end game on his turn, then play will keep going.

I'll repeat, its Designed so that first player cannot end the game on his turn. So he MUST let the other players have the same number of turns. He can still dictate the round where the game ends, he just has to let everyone have the same number of turns.

You telling me what you don't like about the variant is cool, I understand its not perfect, but ALL it is designed to do is give every player the same number of turns.

Does it shift the balance of power to the last player? Yes definitely a little bit, but that's intentional and countered in my view by the fact that he will have less choices at cards (because if player 1 triggers end game, the good last cards are likely to be snapped up by players 1/2 and 3, leaving player 4 with probably very little choice...)

[Ozle]

Basically, im not sure what your point is and what you are trying to achieve. Sorry

[hsiale]

This is a variant suggestion to take away first player advantage

I'm afraid this is a variant that takes away the first player advantage and hands it to the last player. And this advantage may be even bigger. Especially on boards where 3-piling is a strong possibility. I think if playing with this variant and given a choice, I would choose to go last.

[Ozle]

So would I probably, depends on the kingdom really. Although a straight province game I would still want to go first in a 4+ player game with this rule, by the time the last players turn comes round there wont be a lot left to buy!

[Tables]

... I can trash all my Mining Villages, Bishop my Gold freely, Apprentice my Possessions, whatever; I know that no matter what I do to my deck, it won't matter, as long as I get enough points to beat you right now.

Player 1 will never get that opportunity....

Except they do. They do all the crazy stuff, and then end the game. "But what if you do that and still can't!" I hear you saying. Well obviously, that's going to occur in some extremely rare cases, but 99% of the time player 1 can. The equal turns variant is very common, and it does change the game logic - player 1 would lose the ability to end the game ahead, but it's not like that's some huge taboo thing - firstly, if P1 wins by taking a small lead and then ending the game with his extra turn, that's exactly the annoying thing that this tries to avoid. Secondly, you still can end the game if you think you have a comfortable lead.

This changes the game somewhat in a way that mitigates P1's currently huge advantage, into something that probably averages out as being pretty balanced. I mean usually playing this way I'd still want to go first 9 times out of 10, because I'd have first access to those limited Provinces, but having a second player advantage 10% of the time is much better than the current 1%ish.

[Ozle]

Also, this happens in so many other euro games.

If I am playing Ticket to Ride and get down to 2 trains left, everyone else gets the chance to play one last turn and complete routes, put down trains etc.....

[One Armed Man]

The Ticket to Ride games I have played let the game-ender take another turn, as well. I wouldn't want that for Dominion.

[ednever]

I'll bet under these rules P1 still wins >50% of the time with equal skill.

Here's an even simpler rule to mitigate P1 advantage:
On a tie the player with the highest starting position wins.

Looking at iso stats you can see whatvthe effect of this is:
Take all your ties as P2 and make them wins. Take all your ties as P1 and make them losses.
The result is the win rate is still sugnificantly higher for P1.

I'll bet changing the end conditions does the same thing.

When P1 wins with 1 point, it gives the game to P2. If he takes the last province and wins by 4+ he likely wins the game. Mega turns its unclear.


With small sample size I'll bet it will be touch to know the effect. Maybe Doug can create a variant on iso. If enough people play it over time we could see what the effect is...

Ed

[cluckyb]

I'll bet under these rules P1 still wins >50% of the time with equal skill.

Here's an even simpler rule to mitigate P1 advantage:
On a tie the player with the highest starting position wins.

Looking at iso stats you can see whatvthe effect of this is:
Take all your ties as P2 and make them wins. Take all your ties as P1 and make them losses.
The result is the win rate is still sugnificantly higher for P1.

I'll bet changing the end conditions does the same thing.

When P1 wins with 1 point, it gives the game to P2. If he takes the last province and wins by 4+ he likely wins the game. Mega turns its unclear.


With small sample size I'll bet it will be touch to know the effect. Maybe Doug can create a variant on iso. If enough people play it over time we could see what the effect is...

Ed

You can't really say "Look at how these games would play out under ruleset a), they would play out exactly the same under ruleset b)". Its probably true that this probably would still be player 1 advantage, but with P2 knowing they can win if they force the tie their turn you'd probably see their winning percentage go up more than just "ties become wins".

[HiveMindEmulator]

^Yup. If player 2 no longer has to worry about running piles too low or PPR or things like that, he can play a lot differently, and should be the favorite.

[SirPeebles]

Yeah, I think it's the three pile ending that's the big issue.  But also with alt VP. 

If I'm first player and buy the last Province, then you get your last chance at grabbing together enough points to catch up -- although you must do this without Provinces available.  These cancel to some extent, but I could definitely see it often giving a last player advantage.  This partial canceling is less pronounced with alt VP though.  If player 2 is going for a slog of Vineyards, Gardens, Silk Roads, or Feodums then there is another turn to further inflate that score as much as possible, even if the relevant victory piles are all emptied.  Dukes and Fairgrounds can't always be inflated more, but particularly with Fairgrounds you get that last chance to make sure you're at 15 (or 20, etc) differently named cards, even if it means spending $11 on a Curse.

But the biggest issue is the three pile ending.  The three pile ending is effectively no longer *possible*.  Sure, sometimes you're so far ahead that you end on piles just to stop the suffering.  Sometimes you end on a Goons megaturn which buys up so much of the Coppers that even player 2 following with his or her own Goons megaturn, there are not enough $0 cost cards to soak up the dozens of spare buys.

But usually you take the three pile option away from first player whenever such an option is interesting.  That has a sizeable impact on the strategy one takes through the game.  As was discussed in an article by -Stef-, first player advantage is significant, but a bit of early shuffle luck can easily tip the scales towards the second player.  In particular, first player advantage is not something which generally has a huge impact on your strategy -- two high level players need to squeeze out every last advantage, but most of us would be better served thinking about the most efficient way to build into that engine we're dreaming about rather than worrying about being second player.

So first player advantage is real, but both players are largely still using the same strategies since they have the same objectives.

With this variant, the objectives are different enough between first and last player that the strategies will be changed.

Of course, you can be OK with that change.  If you and your friends have fun with it, awesome.  But I don't think it's fair to say that it is just dampening first player advantage.

[empra]

the way my irl group handles first player advantage is to simply hand first player to whomever came last, yes they now have an advantage but (a) they earn it by (usually) sitting through at least a few turns knowing they wont win (last place in 4p becomes apparent mid-game for us usually) and then (b) if swings things to much it wont be their advantage for long

[RichardNixon]

Also, this happens in so many other euro games.

If I am playing Ticket to Ride and get down to 2 trains left, everyone else gets the chance to play one last turn and complete routes, put down trains etc.....

You do realize this is significantly different from what you're proposing, correct?

[Ozle]

Yeah, terrible example looking back

[Powerman]

This effectively eliminates PPR.

As well as a lot of endgame strategy for both P1 and P2.

But, you certainly could play it this way if you want.

[Tables]

Eliminate is a slightly biased term there. Changes it would be a more honest wording, I think. Endgame strategy will be different, not just gone.

[Powerman]

Eliminate is a slightly biased term there. Changes it would be a more honest wording, I think. Endgame strategy will be different, not just gone.

I suppose change is a better word.  It would become:  "If you are player 2, always buy the Penultimate Province.  If you are player 1, always buy the Penultimate Province."

There would, however, be a slight new caveat with 3 provinces remaining.