Machiavelli : empêcher l'anti-jeu

[Nalafab]

La meilleure stratégie, dans 99% des cas, consiste en piocher même si l'on peut jouer pour empêcher l'autre d'utiliser ces cartes du début au moment où l'on peut enfin tout poser. Ce n'est pas du tout amusant, mais c'est ce qu'il faut faire si l'on veut avoir des chances de gagner (si l'autre le fait et pas nous, on est condamné).
Du coup, ce que je fais en IRL, c'est que j'oblige à jouer dès qu'on peut. Une fois qu'on a joué au moins 2 séries, on n'est plus obligé de rien faire. Cela permet de lancer le jeu.
Ce n'est pas si efficace que cela, mais je pense qu'il faut absolument quelque-chose du genre pour lancer la partie. Eventuellement en option pour ceux qui ne veulent pas.

[infomage27]

probably the best fix for this is to set a MAXIMUM number of cards you can play from hand per round (say 6 or 10 or so - this shouldn't count cards taken from the table) - this will encourage people to play things from hand sooner, rather than waiting for the one right moment to play *everything*

alternatively, enforce a 15-card hand limit (drawing more will force you to *randomly* discard down to 15 at the end of your turn) - with the same goal in mind

currently, the optimal strategy (especially in a 2-player game) is to keep pulling cards until you can play everything - which ends up taking a VERY LONG TIME since figuring out all the possible useful combinations with 25+ cards in hand is time consuming (plus the game turns into a situation where the first player to draw a card that allows him to play everything automatically wins)

additionally, the current rule set makes intentionally making invalid moves to draw 3 cards instead of 1 beneficial (I haven't tried it with this implementation, but in theory playing 3 cards, taking them back, and resetting the board to its starting position will do this) - which is silly, since this is supposed to be a penalty

[Nalafab]

La première idée pose un gros problème : elle empêche les plus magnifiques des réorganisations qui nécessitent beaucoup de cartes.

Cependant, la deuxième est super, encore mieux que la mienne.

[Oso]

Maybe a good idea is lost 1 point when you take a card when you've 21 or more cards.

Then, if you've 20, you should play a card because when you take another card your count loss 1 point (to -1, if you've 0 points).

The game never count positive score, the winner always wins with 0 points xD

[Nalafab]

Non ça c'est trop dur pour ceux qui sont vraiment coincés avec rien à faire.

Defausser une carte aléatoire est pour l'instant la meilleure proposition.

[emanueles]

Hello,
first of all, thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Some player told me that people started to adopt the strategy to take the 3 penalty cards every turn. They add many cards to their hand and then they close the game, playing a large number of cards. In the real life game, this is not possible, because the restoring rule is different. In the on-line version, I decided to change the rule because of programming reasons and limit in opponents interaction. During developing, I already thought about the possibility to adopt the strategy I explained before, but I had no solution and I thought also that is not amazing to take 3 cards per turn till you are ready to close the game. That's a really boring way to play! Where's the fun playing this way?
Unfortunately, many players think that spending time on BGA corresponds to win and nothing more.

Anyway, I changed the restoring rule and now, when a player chooses to restore, he gets only 1 card from the deck.

I'll consider the possibility to add rules to avoid the strategy of card cumulation to automatically close the game.

Bye
Emanuele