Hello,
I find that the ranking could be better if it was not made by the number of points.
I would prefer a final ranking compared to the different positions occupied during the game :
- either by taking an average
- either by considering the quality of the positions
For the quality of positions, the first would be the one who has been president the most times, and in the event of a tie the one who has been minister the most times, then citizen, then peasant, then beggar (note on the term "peasant ", it would be nicer to choose "lazy").
Let us consider a game with 4 players in 5 rounds, and with the following positions of each at the end of the round (1 if president, 2 if minister, ...) :
Alfy : 2, 2, 1, 2, 2 (average position 1.8)
Betty : 1, 1, 4, 3, 4 (average position 2.6)
Celdon : 3, 3, 3, 4, 3 (average position 3.2)
Dalton : 4, 4, 2, 1, 1 (average position 2.4)
Compared to the average position, we would finally have the following ranking :
1st : Alfy (1.8)
2nd : Dalton (2.4)
3rd : Betty (2.6)
4th : Celdon (3.2)
(it also corresponds to the point ranking but I am afraid that the total of points does not always represent the average position)
In relation to the quality of the positions, we would finally have the following classification :
1st: Dalton (president x 2, minister x 1, ...)
2nd: Betty (president x 2, minister x 0, ...)
3rd: Alfy (president x 1, ...)
4th: Celdon (president x 0, ...)
Point counting should only be used to determine when the game is over if a number of rounds have not been chosen at the start.
But we could keep the number of points also to establish the ranking.
It would make an option to choose either the ranking by point, or by average position, or by quality of position.
In addition I noted in the rules that in certain cases, the players could not have the same number of cards at the beginning of each round.
I find that unfair.
I find it preferable to consider the tarot deck without the trumps apart from the fool, the 1, 20 and 21 which can act as a joker :
- with 4 players : with the knights
- with 3/5/6 players : with the knights AND the 4 jokers
- with 7/8 players : without the knights if the "joker" option is chosen, with the knights otherwise
remarks:
- with 3 players, there is only 1 president, 1 citizen and 1 beggar
- with 3/5/6 players, if the "joker" option is not chosen, then the jokers could be considered as a higher value than the 2 but must be played alone if it is a question of playing a single card, or by 2 if it is a question of playing 2 cards, or by 3 if 3 cards, and 4 if 4 cards.
Finally, concerning the jokers, at home, we use them differently : they can only be played with at least one other card that is not a joker.
So we cannot play a joker alone (and therefore, if in hand we only have one card left, and it is a joker, we are sure to end up beggar ... unless someone else after oneself has done the same stupid thing in which case it will be him).
But, we can:
- make a pair with a single card + a joker
- a triplet, with 1 or 2 cards of the same value + as many joker as necessary
- a square, with 1 to 3 cards of the same value + as many joker as necessary
- and even groups of 5 to 8 cards by adding 1 to 4 jokers to a single card, a pair, a triplet or a square
To see if it could not be an additional option for the jokers (we would have the choice, between "without joker", "with joker", "with joker assistant").
PS : for the "revolution" option, I will never choose it unless the cards in hand are automatically re-sorted in the new value direction when triggered.
I find that the ranking could be better if it was not made by the number of points.
I would prefer a final ranking compared to the different positions occupied during the game :
- either by taking an average
- either by considering the quality of the positions
For the quality of positions, the first would be the one who has been president the most times, and in the event of a tie the one who has been minister the most times, then citizen, then peasant, then beggar (note on the term "peasant ", it would be nicer to choose "lazy").
Let us consider a game with 4 players in 5 rounds, and with the following positions of each at the end of the round (1 if president, 2 if minister, ...) :
Alfy : 2, 2, 1, 2, 2 (average position 1.8)
Betty : 1, 1, 4, 3, 4 (average position 2.6)
Celdon : 3, 3, 3, 4, 3 (average position 3.2)
Dalton : 4, 4, 2, 1, 1 (average position 2.4)
Compared to the average position, we would finally have the following ranking :
1st : Alfy (1.8)
2nd : Dalton (2.4)
3rd : Betty (2.6)
4th : Celdon (3.2)
(it also corresponds to the point ranking but I am afraid that the total of points does not always represent the average position)
In relation to the quality of the positions, we would finally have the following classification :
1st: Dalton (president x 2, minister x 1, ...)
2nd: Betty (president x 2, minister x 0, ...)
3rd: Alfy (president x 1, ...)
4th: Celdon (president x 0, ...)
Point counting should only be used to determine when the game is over if a number of rounds have not been chosen at the start.
But we could keep the number of points also to establish the ranking.
It would make an option to choose either the ranking by point, or by average position, or by quality of position.
In addition I noted in the rules that in certain cases, the players could not have the same number of cards at the beginning of each round.
I find that unfair.
I find it preferable to consider the tarot deck without the trumps apart from the fool, the 1, 20 and 21 which can act as a joker :
- with 4 players : with the knights
- with 3/5/6 players : with the knights AND the 4 jokers
- with 7/8 players : without the knights if the "joker" option is chosen, with the knights otherwise
remarks:
- with 3 players, there is only 1 president, 1 citizen and 1 beggar
- with 3/5/6 players, if the "joker" option is not chosen, then the jokers could be considered as a higher value than the 2 but must be played alone if it is a question of playing a single card, or by 2 if it is a question of playing 2 cards, or by 3 if 3 cards, and 4 if 4 cards.
Finally, concerning the jokers, at home, we use them differently : they can only be played with at least one other card that is not a joker.
So we cannot play a joker alone (and therefore, if in hand we only have one card left, and it is a joker, we are sure to end up beggar ... unless someone else after oneself has done the same stupid thing in which case it will be him).
But, we can:
- make a pair with a single card + a joker
- a triplet, with 1 or 2 cards of the same value + as many joker as necessary
- a square, with 1 to 3 cards of the same value + as many joker as necessary
- and even groups of 5 to 8 cards by adding 1 to 4 jokers to a single card, a pair, a triplet or a square
To see if it could not be an additional option for the jokers (we would have the choice, between "without joker", "with joker", "with joker assistant").
PS : for the "revolution" option, I will never choose it unless the cards in hand are automatically re-sorted in the new value direction when triggered.