Is An Anti-Deadlock Rule Needed?

[OwnerOfTheIronThrone]

Here is an interesting example.

https://pl.boardgamearena.com/gamerevie ... =489797520

After move 44 you can see my opponent has pretty much lost already. He chooses to spend his gold and continue the game normally, which leads to a pretty one sided win for me.

If we look up what came up from each deck in later turns you will find, that had he taken gold on move 44 and never spent any gold or pearls I would eventually run out of of purchasable cards. I could build 1 card with a pearl I would steal from him with my 3rd crown and after that the board would be all pearls and 8 cost red card.

If my position was truly winning then it would have been truly not winning because his only reasonable choice of moves would be to stop me from winning. Thus assuming we are both playing our best moves, we would never end.

That is a design flaw. A minor, but in my eyes undeniable. I can't say that I don't understand why would people argue it is not a problem with a game, but I think it is foolish. I suppose it would be easier to accept if I called it imperfection instead.

[ufm]

Contact the designer or the publisher.
If you can't for some reason or they don't respond, contact the developer instead and explain what the issue is, so they might relay your message.

[thoun]

Example situation : https://imgur.com/a/Ivhc2xz

Did some of you try to reach the publisher about this? And get any answer?

[OwnerOfTheIronThrone]

Example situation : https://imgur.com/a/Ivhc2xz

Did some of you try to reach the publisher about this? And get any answer?

I have tried to reach the author, but have not got any respond so far. It has been very recently though so we should wait a little longer.

[OwnerOfTheIronThrone]

Example situation : https://imgur.com/a/Ivhc2xz

Btw this is actually the best example we have so far. Both players are strong, the prison position did happen (unlike in my last example where I have only shown that it could have happened) and game did end up being abandoned due to that, because player with worse position had no interest in letting his pearls go.

EDIT.
Sorry, I gave players benifit of the doubt assuming they calculated it well, but apparently it is forced win for blocking player. He should have taken 1 green and get rid of 1 blue (not red because his opponent has 8red reserved). Then following sequence:
1. Take 2 point black crown for 1 pearl. Opponent refreshes and takes pearl.
2. Take 3 points black 2 crowns without spending gold, take 3vp for 6 crowns. Opponent can buy 1 card for a pearl.
3. Take 4 vp black and end the game.

He had no reason to keep position blocked and missed out on a win because of aborting.

[DomitienAW]

Example situation : https://imgur.com/a/Ivhc2xz

Did some of you try to reach the publisher about this? And get any answer?

In this situation Loulou win in 3 turns :
- take 2 blue tokens, gave back 2 green
Moonsee can’t do anything miningfull
- buy the 5 points card for 6 blue and one pearl to reach 14 points
Moonsee best move is to take the pearl with privilege and buy the 3 points/2crown/black bonus card => he reach 8 crowns
- buy the 6 points card for 5 blue and 3 gold to reach 20 points and win

this is an example where the blocking strategy is usefull

[DomitienAW]

Hello everyone,

I'm Domitien, the project manager of Splendor Duel at Space Cowboys.

TL:DR; It's not a flaw, and we won't be implementing any "solutions" as those will create real problems in the game.

Now, for the detailed explanation:
The "prison" situation arises when one player (let's call him John) forces the other (let's call her Luna) into an indefinite loop where each turn Luna can only acquire tokens.

This situation can occur in two scenarios:

• When Luna cannot afford to purchase any cards on the board and has already reserved three cards that she cannot pay for. It's worth noting that if she finds herself stuck in this situation, it's usually because she's played poorly with her gold tokens leading her to be cornered.
• When John take the 2 pearls and 3 gold tokens and hoard them until Luna cannot buy anything. This tactics usually works only in specific situations, where the cards available in the market need pearls to be acquired, as 10 tokens is usually more than enough to buy Level 1 and most of Level 2 cards. Especially if this situation happens in midgame where you usually have a few bonuses.

In both cases, the game becomes stalled because at some point, John focuses on hindering Luna rather than progressing towards his own victory.

If the hindrance is temporary and merely a strategy for John to gain time and build his engine, it can be considered a tactic (Note: rarely a winning one). However, if John's sole aim is to obstruct the game (for example, by continually acquiring chips without buying any card), then it transitions from being a strategic choice to an anti-game tactic.

The question then arises: should we address this issue of anti-gaming? Our answer is unequivocally no.
Introducing specific rules to rectify such rare instances unnecessarily complicates the overall understanding of the game. Additionally, these specific rules often lead some players, particularly those with less experience, to question whether exploiting them could become a winning strategy (and it’s not).
We need the rules to guide players on the path to optimal strategies, with the expectation of good sportsmanship implicit throughout.

Attempting to patch this issue may cause more harm than good by exacerbating conflicts rather than resolving them.

However, there is one important case where this situation is becoming more frequent: when winning, losing, or drawing has a wider impact in a metagame (such as in tournaments or in the BGA ranking system).
We spoke to our teams organizing tournaments, and they all informed us that such behavior would be subject to exclusion.
Similarly, the BGA teams examined the data on the games played, and while it is a relatively rare occurrence at the moment, they are implementing a system that will indicate that this strategy is considered anti-gaming. Any attempt by a player to use this strategy can lead to a loss of ELO points or even reputation.

Best regards,
Domitien