Suggestion: bid for turn order, or option to end immediately after equal number of turns

[quackzalber]

Hi all,

I suspected this longer, but had no good example to bring my point forward. But the way the end game works could lead to unfairness in competitive play, due to the possibility of not having an equal number of (regular) turns, which is just randomly decided by turn order.

Here I have kind of proof why it is terrible to go second, in a 2 player game. https://boardgamearena.com/8/arknova?table=417108509#
I still won by 2 appeal, but the 'catch up' of the first player was so unfair! I am a fast player that almost always can cross first (more than 95% of my games, maybe even more). But it is so sick that if I am not first player, the other player has a whole turn more, which could be worth more than 20 appeal easily.

I'm ok with REAL catch-up mechanisms, but this one is just random, because as last player you NEVER have a catch-up mechanism, which is bluntly unfair. Because the BEST thing that can happen to you is that you have an equal number of turns, which is NO catch-up mechanism.

The one extra appeal at the start of the game is at most a fair way to compensate the best cards will be snapped away before you, the best uni or partner zoo is taken before you, and the break triggers before you can optimize your turns as the first player always can. I doubt even with an equal number of turns it's enough compensation, but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Especially when the game would end immediately after the "round" is finished (i.e. equal number of turns). Then at least the later players have a little advantage there. It would be so much better, because with that ruleset everyone should push for the endgame as fast as possible.

But now my opponent who went first could just load a super turn and wait for me to cross my markers. While when the current round was finished, and the endgame was triggered, I was far in the lead! Ok could be a pity for the opponent who didn't read the end game well enough, but I just played better in the number of turns we both had, and I was the only one able to even cross that round. WHY ON EARTH would the first player get another chance to get past that... I'm furious, even while I have won the game. Rant out...

I know from forums of BGG that playtesters hated the fact that they "just missed one more turn" in the early stages of testing when the game ended immediately after the round was finished in which someone triggered the endgame. And that not everyone has a problem with the rules as written.

Still it's just random and unfair in competitive play, so I would really appreciate a bidding for turnorder system (just subtract the bid in appeal points after the game has been finished), or even better, enable the option to play untill everyone has had an equal number of turns after the end game trigger, and immediately end the game. In that case I would have no problem with going first, last, or anything in between.

[buu441]

This would be a lot more convincing if you had some data/stats to back up the claim.

[quackzalber]

well, it is not my point to prove other people wrong. I just would like the option so the people like me who have a problem with the turn order advantage have at least the option to make it a fair match (in our own perception at least). And I back it up with the game in the link so the logical reasoning is better to follow. GWT also has a bid for turn order option, which is not present in the official rules. And I doubt if anyone could really prove there is real turnorder advantage, because there is also a lot of inefficient play at BGA. The fact that, with Ark Nova as well as GWT I win almost every game regardless of turn order, doesn't mean there is no first player advantage! So it's good the option is there for really competitive players. And anyone who doesn't perceive the problem, no problemo, bid 0 points! Or create a game without the option

[pjt33]

First off, I agree that it's quite a bad disadvantage to go last.

But there are a couple of things I disagree with in your rant. Firstly, on the question of having the best card snapped away or the best association taken first, that's often as much down to the random starting order of the cards as to who went first. Secondly,

But now my opponent who went first could just load a super turn and wait for me to cross my markers.

Why would a good player do that? It's a race: if they're waiting for you to cross then they're giving you time to improve your score. There's certainly tactical value in getting as close to crossing as possible and then playing one big turn (unless your opponents are so far behind that you just want to hit 100 before they recover), but if you can hit 110 points then you should do that immediately.

[JDansp]

1st player advantage is huge, but your rant makes 0 sense. I think the best way to compensate 2nd player would be with an x. That being said, whoever is first is a random element in ark and i think more fair end games would be a better place to start

[KeithHendricks]

I wouldn’t draw any conclusions at all from your win rate or your own game log, as all the opponents I saw had from 100-130 ELO, about 200 or more less than your own ranking. These are bona fide “newb notches,” like piling up kills of newbs in Splatoon.

That said, you are likely right about the first player advantage, at least in two player. Player two (in two player only) should be given the option of either 1) an x token; 2) 5 money; or 3) to play one of their starting sponsors as a free action before the game begins, assuming no prerequisites. In 3 and 4 player I think the first player advantage is negligible because everyone’s planning will start to get in each other’s way.

[RicardoRix]

2) 5 money; or 3) to play one of their starting sponsors as a free action before the game begins, assuming no prerequisites.

This is equivalent to a forced sponsor 1st action ($5 for a sponsor break). So it's almost switched back to the 2nd player going 1st, and you're back where you originally started.
Something simple like the PI rule (which is pretty close to an auction system). Player A offers $X and Player B either accepts it to go 2nd, or pays it to go 1st.

[quackzalber]

First off, I agree that it's quite a bad disadvantage to go last.

But there are a couple of things I disagree with in your rant. Firstly, on the question of having the best card snapped away or the best association taken first, that's often as much down to the random starting order of the cards as to who went first. Secondly,

But now my opponent who went first could just load a super turn and wait for me to cross my markers.

Why would a good player do that? It's a race: if they're waiting for you to cross then they're giving you time to improve your score. There's certainly tactical value in getting as close to crossing as possible and then playing one big turn (unless your opponents are so far behind that you just want to hit 100 before they recover), but if you can hit 110 points then you should do that immediately.

I guess I my rant was in fact a little bit nuance-lacking what I mean by the first bit is that some of those things I summed up will somewhat more likely happen more often to players later in turn order, than to the first player. More over I had a 3 player live game, where I was 3rd and the first player had exactly the same action card formation as I had, with cards at 5 and association at 2. It was brutal for me as 3rd player. Ok, I still won the game, but the start was not favorable at all, and I even crossed my markers first so I was the only one with a turn less.

Just trying to say that the 1, 2, 3 appeal for later players is good to fix the less favorable start positions with respect to the first couple of actions. Would be ok for me, if only everyone had guaranteed an equal number of standard turns (I count double and triple turns with determination as only one standard turn of course)

And concerning the second question, I think I might not have expressed clear enough what I mean, but glad you ask. I still was by far the only player that could cross in the round that I crossed. I don't mean that my opponent was giving me the chance to cross. It is just that, with the current end game rules, my opponent could safely take an extra turn into account in the end game. Say as the last player, I could cross at my 30th turn, then in a fair game, my opponent should suspect that and use his/her 30th turn to try to get their markers as close to each other as possible (or cross of course, but my opponent couldn't do that in the same turn as me).

But now, thanks to the unfair endgame, my opponent could instead use their 30th turn, to make the undeserved 31th turn extra strong! For example just build an extra enclosure for an extra animal in their 31th turn, or get a cross or whatever to make their final association even stronger. Would be fair game as I would also get a 31th turn, but of course I did not because I was last player.

So yes, any good player would make use of how this works, and why shouldn't they?

I hope I could express myself clearer now, English is not my native language so I'm sorry if it's difficult to follow.

A fair endgame would be my favorable option: or end immediately after round of end game trigger, or if anybody else than the starting player triggers the end, finish the current round and play one more round. (I can imagine it is not always possible to predict when an opponent might cross, so in the last proposal all players have at least one more turn when the end is triggered and the number of standard turns are always equal for each player

[scottiegazelle]

Granted, I am not a great player, my elo keeps calling back to zero, probably bc I enjoy way too much the super ending. My favorite game, I actually got to play two eagles and a sun bear - and I still barely won. There are plenty of times I've been caught with an eagle in my hand and not enough money, or not enough projects to complete. So while I love watching my score go from 80 to 120 in a single turn, it requires giving up a few things.

First, I have taken one of the three early and held it in my hand thru several rounds. Sometimes even since the very first round. Which is not a great plan, because I lose out on other things.

I have to make sure to ALWAYS build an aviary and always have a size two enclosure empty 'just in case.' Same with taking Asia. I am trying to back off on the aviary until I have at least one bird but I usually have a spot I am building around in case I change my mind, which messes with laying other things down...there's a serious opportunity cost there.

And then there is money. I can't tell you how many times I've gone out without enough money to actually house my determination animal. But to make sure I have enough money means ending the round with something like 20 on hand if we're getting close to the end. Which means not putting down other animals.

But the saddest thing is when I have a determination animal and no CPs to fill. Or no workers to get over there. Then I have to calculate what is better last turn, after saving up and not doing other stuff all that time.

There's a whole nother argument about how the cross mechanism isn't terrible, no one is forcing you to cross, and you can always do a super move first. But I'm on my phone and tired lol.