Are endgame cards the worst design flaw of Ark Nova?

[demyurge]

I know there's RNG in any card game but endgame cards in Ark Nova have to be by far the weakest point of the game.

I've had a series of losses decided simply by the fact that I am offered a choice between two endgames that will score at most 2 points and the opponent has one endgame with an easy 4 like Favorite Zoo.

One game in particular made me want to quit for a while because of how unfair it was: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=502941940
To sum it up, once again I was offered a choice between Climbing Park and Aquatic Park. My opponent played an Elephant at some point which gave him another endgame. Fast forward to the deciding turns, I am about to end with my Rhino project into grabbing the last worker. My opponent commits a big blunder and decides to build instead of breaking even though he has an Eagle and not enough money to play it (and he had all the intel to know I could finish). I play my Species Diversity and trigger the endgame, sitting at a confortable 30 point lead. I could not believe my eyes when I saw Favorite Zoo (4) into Research Zoo (4 also thanks to a Science Museum from their last Hollywood tile) to equal my score exactly and win on tie breaks. Especially insane since those were literally the only two endgame cards that gave him 4 points, any other combination would have lost them the game because of their blunder.

I believe Ark Nova would be a much better game without them altogether. I know they have been slightly balanced in Marine Worlds but this doesn't change the underlying issue with them: while they give enough points to decide some games, they don't give enough to base your strategy around them. This means that for optimal play - at least in my opinion but I would love better players to chime in on this - you basically ignore them completely until the very last turns where they can decide some minor decisions to maximize your score (do I finish building my park for the extra 2 points on Architectural instead of playing one more animal? etc). Most of the times they don't matter because the score difference is large enough, but when they do, it always feels unfair.

What do you all think, do you like them or would you happily trash them too (and rework Elephants obviously)?

EDIT: ah nice I just lost another one because of endgame RNG (that makes it 3 in a row now), choice between Conservation Zoo for 2 points and Naturalist Zoo for 0 points, opponent has Architectural for 4 points and I lose because of this

[boardgamesmue]

What do you all think, do you like them or would you happily trash them too (and rework Elephants obviously)?

I think the basic idea is good to have such cards, but I agree that they are not very balanced. There are some cards where you need to build a lot around to get over 2 points, like the ones you mentioned and some are easy 2-3 points without building around anything cause you will reach them as the game progresses. One part trying to fix this is the expansion and also the fact that you draw 2 and choose one, but as you said you can just draw 2 of the very bad ones.

So I would rather see a balance by changing some of the cards.

[mulqmook]

I think really the answer is drafting. That removes a lot of the variability in here.

But yeah, probably just removing favorite zoo, because it's pretty much the only one that's a guaranteed 4. Reducing the requirements for aquatic, climbing, and probably architectural zoo would make them less of a 2/4 situation. And removing naturalist zoo entirely because while it does encourage a different play style with all of the free range/rock lizard/etc cards, it's just rarely if ever a viable strategy

[Monkeyunit]

Some are easier than others, but I don't believe in the "favorite zoo is 4 free cp" myth.
It forces cards to be upgraded ( which isn't a bad thing) and also kinda forces you to grab uni's ( again, usually not a bad thing but still a restriction)

And you might have 2 difficult ones, but I find in my own games it rare the end game decides the winner.
The luck of the draw is also there in starting hands.
One player might have an easy route to an early project, and the other doesn't.
That probably decides the outcome more often than endgames, but is less obvious to see.

[JDansp]

Yes. I'd say 25% of my losses is simply just having a harder to fulfill endgame than my opponent. I think a good and interesting way to balance endgames would be you score both your own and your opponents (excluding elephants ofc), until marine worlds hits where they tried fixing the endgame imbalance

[greenjacket124]

Some are easier than others, but I don't believe in the "favorite zoo is 4 free cp" myth.
It forces cards to be upgraded ( which isn't a bad thing) and also kinda forces you to grab uni's ( again, usually not a bad thing but still a restriction)

And you might have 2 difficult ones, but I find in my own games it rare the end game decides the winner.
The luck of the draw is also there in starting hands.
One player might have an easy route to an early project, and the other doesn't.
That probably decides the outcome more often than endgames, but is less obvious to see.

How do I upvote a post? This is the best take I've seen on it.

[Propaganda Panda]

Dunno if it's the worst, but it's definitely the most fixable. I am not against endgame cards per se, but they are just horribly balanced. Just some small fixes, and this wouldn't be a problem at all. Sadly, the expansion improves things slightly but doesn't really adress the main imbalances.

It's simply unfair with some endgames, 4 CP are at least very realistic (e.g. Favourite Zoo or Architectural Zoo), whereas with others, it's pretty much impossible (e.g. Aquatic Park, Naturalist Zoo).

Aquatic Park and Climbing Park are the worst designed cards by far. Not just because they're weak, but because you have very little influence about how much CP you will get. Even with piss poor cards like Naturalist Zoo, you can at least adapt your playstyle and usually squeeze out 2 CP. With Aquatic or Climbing Park, you just pray that you get some playable water/rock icons.

[demyurge]

Some are easier than others, but I don't believe in the "favorite zoo is 4 free cp" myth.
It forces cards to be upgraded ( which isn't a bad thing) and also kinda forces you to grab uni's ( again, usually not a bad thing but still a restriction)

And you might have 2 difficult ones, but I find in my own games it rare the end game decides the winner.
The luck of the draw is also there in starting hands.
One player might have an easy route to an early project, and the other doesn't.
That probably decides the outcome more often than endgames, but is less obvious to see.

Favorite Zoo is not automatically 4 but it's basically minimum 2 (even without upgraded cards) and very easily 4.

The ones I dislike are the ones that rely on finding specific stuff. You can get to 15 rep no matter what you draw. You can fill up your map using just the build action (this is more dependant on game pace though, and some sponsors help), and getting at least 2 on Architectural Zoo is piss easy. The unis get you 3 science and then every science sponsor you find afterwards is 1 more point on the endgame. Good luck finding 8 water tags if you never draw them. Good luck supporting 6 projects if all you ever see are the 3 base ones, and even then you need the required tags to support them. Good luck playing 10 sponsors or 10 small animals if you don't have an engine built around those specific things.

Basically it boils down to: did you get Favorite, Diverse, Architectural or Research? Easy 2 to 4 points ; did you get Small, Large, Sponsored, Naturalist, Climbing, Aquatic, Conservation? You better shape your strategy around it or you're not scoring more than 2.

[demyurge]

Yes. I'd say 25% of my losses is simply just having a harder to fulfill endgame than my opponent. I think a good and interesting way to balance endgames would be you score both your own and your opponents (excluding elephants ofc), until marine worlds hits where they tried fixing the endgame imbalance

Glad to read it happens to the best of us.
Good fix proposition too. Having it be more like TM rewards is a good idea and could even lead to some mindgames.
I'm not fully convinced by the Marine World balancing. Large and Conservation are at least realistic now. Aquatic and Climbing they just lowered the 4 condition by 1 which really doesn't fix much, but at least for Aquatic there's the aquariums.