Possible "Tournament Mode" Tweaks

[Jon Perry]

Hi,

Spots designer here. We have done research on statistics for the game, and I feel that it is quite well balanced as it is.

However, I have in mind two possible tweaks that could create a slightly more robust "tournament mode." This is less about balance and more about how the game feels to play. I am curious how people who play the game a ton would react to these changes. Note that these would apply only in 2 player and only for people playing competively.

(1) At the start of the game, two random tricks will start already used.

(2) Starting dogs will be drafted from an open pool of 4. Player A takes 1, Player B takes 2, Player A takes the remaining.

[jorgeanchovy]

Hello,
Thanks for designing Spots, it's a good game that requires being adaptable rather than rigid with strategy. I played it in person Monday night & taught 3 people at a local game meetup, and coincidentally also played the CMYK game Wavelength. Posting as Arena #1 for a brief moment, due to a run of luck which will surely turn and throw me down again, but have been top 5 last few seasons.

I'm not sure I understand the "feel of play" objective you mention, what does this mean in the context of your changes? If you consider the game well balanced, what is the concern you are trying to address here?

Can you please explain the rationale for tweak #1? I think this tweak could add imbalance and lead to more runaway victories. For example it is common in many opening scenarios to play Howl first and there are times, depending on luck of the draw of cards where a good player becomes quite ahead immediately due to better protection against busting, more paws, etc. If the game starts with 4 of 6 cards unplayed and one of them (randomly) is still Howl, then player 1 plays Howl and player 2 may have even fewer options to catch up from a unlucky opening. Then they start taking risks and busting, and then you have a runaway win (with wise play and average luck).

Tweak #2
I think this would add balance. I have envisioned something similar where there is a tableau of 3 or 4 dog cards that is picked from throughout the game & replenished, and have wondered why this wasn't the game design -- maybe just to make the table layout one bit simpler for new learners?

Often I wish this game were designed without the paws mechanism. Yes it adds a strategic element & is one of the factors that delays scoring filled cards. I know in theory that less paws=less dice to fill. But in actual gameplay with a highly imbalanced paw count, especially in the off leash variant, certain cards whose power depends on paws may only benefit one player. Add this to having more dice = more bust protection, and one player is just having way more fun -- playing more powerful cards that are less risky for them, etc. I think tweak #2 can help this. You may reply that the researched statistics show the paw-poor player winning just as often, in those scenarios - which will be interesting - in that case maybe it *is* more about the feel of play than the result of play.

[Jon Perry]

Thanks for responding! Lately, I am playing the game a lot competitively myself to get a better firsthand idea of how it feels. My thoughts on this are still evolving.

Regarding tweak number (1), there are two thoughts behind it.

One is that it simply creates more varied opening scenarios. I know a lot of people like to Howl as their first move, as you mention, and this change would mean that 1/3rd of games that will not be an option, for example. This to me is a feel thing, about increasing variety, and not necessarily about increasing balance.

Two, is about the timing of the first trick reset. The most probable scenario (unless player 1 has the good luck to complete a dog in a single turn, which is impossible via Howl) is that the second player's second turn will be a choice of all six tricks, including one augmented by a treat. This should help the second player, although my understanding from stats is that the first player advantage is currently small (something like 53-47) so there is not necessarily a huge need for it. My concern is more about changing the opening dynamic, which I think can become a race to complete a single dog, as that then allows you to dictate the timing of the first trick reset. Currently, if the first player manages to complete a dog and the second player does not, then that can feel a bit like a snowball in the beginning of the game. This rule would make that far less likely to happen.

Regarding paws generally -- when I was initially designing the game, I did computer simulations and learned definitively that dogs which require less dice are a huge advantage towards winning. So the paws really do need to be powerful to counteract that. I do understand that it can be less fun playing without paws, though!

As far as why you don't get to pick your dogs from a display of multiple options...there is more than one reason for this. Yes, it is simpler and cleaner on the table. But also it would make the decision space more flat, in my opinion. Right now the value of Howl & scoring one's dogs is tied to the identity of the card currently on top of the deck, which means that sometimes Howl/scoring is a better or worse strategic option, creating varied scenarios. If you always got to just pick the best dog of 4, then this texture would be lost. It also wouldn't be that interesting of a decision which dog to pick. For the most part you'd just pick the one with with higher numbers and more numbers you don't already have.

[jorgeanchovy]

Thanks for sharing your thinking Jon. I understand tweak #1 better now, I hadn't thought about player 2 having all 6 cards to choose from on their 3rd turn a lot of the time. Makes sense. Plus removing howl 1/3 of the time makes sense, although I probably don't opt for it 1/3+ of the time as is - if I see a better opportunity.

It's interesting to consider Roll Over being gone 1/3 of the time as well. Kinda lousy for the player who starts with a 6 buried & doesn't happen to have other favorable choices on the table, maybe the treat-earning card is the other one randomly absent! My instinct is that this tweak would cause more statistically unbalanced opening positions than the base game, but I could be wrong.

I'd be interested in the parameters of the computer simulation that showed a definitive advantage for cards with less dice (absent of paws). Did the simulation involve "ideal play" or some kind of randomization of play? May be too off topic to answer me, which is fine, not trying to hijack the thread.
You've really made me ponder some things. If I see Doog ahead I tend to be motivated to score or howl in a lot of scenarios -- maybe that's wrong.

[Jegpeg]

It's interesting to consider Roll Over being gone 1/3 of the time as well. Kinda lousy for the player who starts with a 6 buried & doesn't happen to have other favorable choices on the table, maybe the treat-earning card is the other one randomly absent! My instinct is that this tweak would cause more statistically unbalanced opening positions than the base game, but I could be wrong.

The other situation in which a player who starts with a 6 could not have a favourable card to pick is if the gain tricks card is play dead. If they can't roll over their only options might have a very high chance of going bust.

In the current format, while the first player can take howl in doing so their chance of getting the choice of all 6 cards in the next "round" is reduced because they only get one die. I have wondered if Howl would be more balanced if it was you Either get the next dog card OR you roll 1 die (or maybe up to 2 dice) there would be more variety in what card is picked first. Howl is curently the strongest card early in the game but the weakest once you have 6 cards.

I do like the drafting dog cards idea.

I do not think changes like this should be limited to tournaments (if thay is what you actually meant by "Tournament mode") for me the main competitive fourmat is Arena so any changes aimed at competitive play should be there, however I think it should be an opion for casual games players should have the option of practising under "Arena rules" in a more casual environment.

[Jon Perry]

I suppose the worst case scenario for a first turn under Tweak (1) would be:

--I have a 6 buried in my yard. (33% of games the first player will have a 6)
--Both Howl and Roll Over start out flipped. (6.67% of games)
--Play Dead is the treat gathering trick that's available. (100% games if you're playing the Puppy Pen set, but only 20% of games with random/off leash)

Assuming all of the above, this would indeed be a rough start that might very well lead to you busting on turn 1... Though at least on turn 1 you have no progress to lose. You'd still finish your first turn better off than when you started, due to having cleared your yard.

It doesn't seem too bad tbh, though I am starting to sense that maybe Tweak (1) is just generally not that appealing to people.

Very interesting idea about Howl being an EITHER/OR!

[Jon Perry]

Also, I am just using "Tournament Mode" as a convenient name for the changes. If we did make these changes, I agree that the setting should be available to all players, including for both Arena and casual play.

[jorgeanchovy]

It's fun and interesting to consider these tweaks critically but i don't intend to give you the idea that it's unappealing. Bottom line is I'm curious/interested to try any variant that you as the designer want to put out there.

[Deadly_Rat]

Hello Mr. Perry. Thank you for designing this very fun game and continuing to come up with variants. I think both changes sound good in theory. I'll play around a bit next week and see how I really feel about them.

[Jon Perry]

@Deadly_Rat

Did you ever end up trying them out?