Leaving a game / ask for remake / balancing issues

[Mushido]

Three subjects, but they are related..

The problem:
Gaia Project is absolutely awesome as a board game. However, it is more than clear that two factions are beyond broken and ruin the experience (itars and ivits). I have not played a single game with ban option on that doesn't have these two factions banned - for good reasons.

That said, because the queues are long, I sometimes end up in games in which the ban option is not selected. I then ask right away if people could please agree to not picking ivits and itars, so we can actually have an enjoyable game that's not decided by "I picked an overpowered faction, so I win!". Most of the time, people agree, but sometimes some players do not read beforehand and they pick one of them anyway.

My reaction to that is usually to call for a remake, since I do not want to waste 2 hours playing a game that will not be enjoyable whatsoever with a winner that's already decided, not because of skills, but because of poor balancing issues. Most of the time, people agree, we start a new game and we have a great time, as people would if they were around a table and playing the real game among friends...

...and then there's those who want a cheap win to boost their elo. We thus end up with the player who picked that faction refusing to remake the game, because "it's your fault if you didn't pick them first!" or "That other player who's not you should have known better as to not rotate that faction out of the game!"
-----------

My solutions / questioning:
- Why do you need to have all 4 players agree to a remake? Couldn't it just be the majority agreed to remake, you thus remake? Can I get a couple of free leaves in cases where people are selfishly taking you hostage? (I would leave the house or the game if one of my "friends" refused not to pick a faction just so he gets a cheap win, why can't I do it here?).

- Why are those factions left intact and untouched? Doesn't the data clearly show that ivits and itars are simply gamebreaking? I mean, I do not have access to the data, but judging by the fact I never see those factions under 190 points, --no matter the setup-- (usually at 200+ points even), or the idea that the clear fact they are 100% picked or banned must be pretty obvious that they need to be fixed, no?

My balancing suggestions:
** I believe Itars should have a maximum of 1 tech per round from their PI and shouldn't have a 3 knowledge income from their academy. It makes them way too versatile and powerful. Why do they start with an extra ore too? Why don't their power tokens not get deleted like all other factions when they power boost? Why do they get that many benefits despite having arguably the strongest stronghold in the game AND the singlest strongest academy in the game?

** Ivits shouldn't get a QiC income, OR their faction satellites shouldn't count for fed size. They start with a building that's 6 ores and 9 gold worth of ressources, get to place it -after- other players, get more leech than everyone else, get a free 4 power and start amassing power tokens from round 1. Why do they have so much when factions like Lantids don't even have regular starting gold and only have 4 power tokens.. nor do they have a power income under their PI.


I can't be the only one who has these issues?

[BaseSig]

While these factions are incredibly strong and I would rank them both top 3, some of what you say suggests to me that they aren't being played against properly. If you're playing any competitive format you will have to deal with the strongest factions whether you like it or not.

Very much like in Terra Mystica, you can't simply charge some factions without dire consequences. Itars will absolutely obliterate people if they get a lot of early charge, and same with Ivits. I would argue though that if other factions get more leech at the table they won't dominate in such a heavy manner. Honestly I'm of the strong opinion (having been on both ends of this) that if someone at the table scores over 200 points, other players at the table have made mistakes or choices that lead to this, regardless of faction.

While I agree that Itars and Ivits are likely the strongest factions in the game, I don't agree with the approach regarding this.

[Kayvon]

Disclaimer: I am a developer, but I am not a BGA employee.

> Why do you need to have all 4 players agree to a remake?
This is a BGA site question at large. My take is that all four players agreed to sit down for a full game, so all four are required to agree to cancel the game.

If this weren't the case, you'd see cases where three players agree to abandon games once they see they're losing. It's poor sportsmanship and the system, rightfully so, prevents this from happening. Short story: Don't agree to a game you don't want to finish.

> Why are those factions left intact and untouched?
As developers, we adapt the physical board game into an online experience. It's not our place to redesign or rebalance games. We have received permission from the publisher to introduce variants like the ban option, but that's a far cry from changing another designer's work.

> My balancing suggestions
Have you considered contacting the publisher directly with your ideas and suggestions? Posting rants on BGA is fun and all, but if you're looking to effectuate any actual change, it would have to start from the publisher.