Proposed balance change for first player advantage

[HighwayGoGo]

As has been discussed widely, Ark Nova statistics for Ark Nova show a significant first player advantage. While there may be a desire to play the game as it was originally created, we are already playing most games competitively with the same map which would not be possible with a single physical copy of the game. Along the same lines, I would propose that if there is a community interest in reducing the first player advantage, then we institute a free clever ability at the beginning of the first turn for the second player. I think that with this, there would still be a large first player advantage, as most of the advantage probably comes from being able to prevent opponents from doing things like releasing before the break. Adding a clever action would reduce the ability of the first player to snap the best card off of the display by allowing the second player to move cards to a higher position when advantageous, and would also make it more difficult to force someone into taking a partner zoo over a university when they have association on 2 and the first player can threaten a break on the 2nd or 3rd action. My suspicion is that even under this ruleset we would still see a substantial first player advantage, but this change would tamp down slightly on the degree of asymmetry, while still being completely within the logic of the game.

I love the game as it is currently played, but would also be curious to hear the community's perspective on making a small change to improve the competitive balance of the game. Thanks for anyone who took the time to read this.

[BlanketAddict]

I think JDansp suggested that the 2nd player should start with an x token, which I personally prefer to a clever ability

[HighwayGoGo]

That would also make sense. I think either would go some ways towards correcting the game balance somewhat.

[Monkeyunit]

I think an X token is more flexible and a better solution than a free clever.
Especially if your actions are already in a fine order the clever would be wasted.

[pjt33]

In the right circumstances, a Clever can be almost as good as four Xs. The biggest problem with either suggestion is that they're only considering 2-player games.

[Monkeyunit]

two player seems to be the most competative viable.
3 or 4 player and the chance of ( unintentional) kingmaking becomes huge.

But giving X tokens can be scaled to 3 or 4 players easily. ( not sure if third player should get 2, or maybe only fourth player)
Giving third or fourth player multiple Clevers at start of game doesnt sound that helpfull.

[CharlesRDarwin]

I think this is just for 2p? At 4p I'm happy to go last (which gives a 3 appeal start over 1st player)

A number of other games solve such issues by bidding. E.g. in 2p each player could bid the least amount of extra appeal they would accept for going second. So if think going first is a huge advantage, you could say you want 3 appeal to go second. If I thought it was a smaller advantage, I could say I'm happy to only have 2 appeal to go second. Then you'd go first, and I'd go second with two appeal.

Eventually a consensus of the "correct" number may occur, and then it would be luck, but the game would be very balanced; an "advantage" of 0.4 starting appeal isn't going to help any more than a nice starting hand.