How many options ... is too many?

[Grapelli]

Hi there,

I learned Yaniv from my brother some years ago. It was played with a "Yaniv call limit" of 7 and an "Elimination limit" of 201 points or 101 points. While I understand there's a lot of variations played around the globe this seems to be the most popular variant.

The beta implementation of Yaniv allows for 10 different options for "Yaniv call limit" ranging from 5 to 25 (also: no limit is an option). There are three options for an "Elimination limit" of 201, 101 or 51 points and 7 options for score deduction.

While I appreciate some of the options I'd argue there are too many of them. Not only can people play ridiculous games up to 51 points with a Yaniv call limit of 25 - players tend to prefere options that lead to shorter games. That means a classical game of Yaniv - limit 7, elimination 201 - will hardly ever be played. The tendency is already visible in the games played in the first days of beta testing an will likely reinforce itself. - Players get to know Yaniv as a game to 51 points with the maximum "Yaniv call limit" there is and will continue to play that way ...

One could argue this is not a bad thing but I think the classical options deserve a chance. A good example is Koi-Koi. It is implemented in it's classical length of 12 months, with a possible reduction to 6 month (which is much more popular). Some other options exist - but not too many. The BGA implementation favours the classical variation and allows for a reduction - without changing the feel of the game altogether. Also, it has proven rather popular ... maybe because it is concrete, not something adjustable at will.

I would love to see the same for Yaniv. My suggestion would be drastically reducing the number of options and see how people respond. What I have in mind is more or less the following:

- 3 options for "Yaniv call limit": 5 / 7 / 10
- 2 options for "Elimination limit": 101 / 201
- 2 options for "Score deduction": yes / no (at 50 / 100 / 150 / 200)

This would allow for some options while retaining the original feel of the game, IMHO.

Grapelli

[ufm]

Rejected. I tested it during alpha and it was not good enough (took literally hundreds of turns to complete a simple 2 player game).
New options were added later after complaints.

[cigma]

took literally hundreds of turns to complete a simple 2 player game

I learned about his game just three days ago (here on BGA). My experience is the same as ufm described: Even with the default setting of 51 points in a 2 player game, it seems to be rather "long".

On one hand the gameplay looks a bit slow technically. Maybe it could be a little faster e. g. with an auto-draw, if you don't click on one card of the previous turn within 2 seconds? Doing without confirmation of the cards played was already rejected by ufm. https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=57951 Anything else?

On the other hand I have to admit that I didn't quite enjoy it for the low influence as a player (even compared to very luck based games as Yahtzee or Solo). Maybe I would like the game better with a higher Yaniv call limit or even without it and will try this variant. I could even imagine this game as more interesting with a starting hand of 7 or more cards, so there is a higher chance of a sequence.

I wonder what is the difference to the real life game, where people like to play games with 201 points (which surely lasts much longer)?

[merzee]

I would definitely like to see more limited options, but also an option for a 7 card hand.