[Playte] Finding the way to improve BGA Digit code

[PhilAtLast]

The planned adjustment is: when a player declares and correctly guesses the code, the remaining players in that round will also be given a chance to guess, and if correct, all will be considered winners.

If the "remaining players in the round" means that everyone gets an equal number of turns in the game so that Player 1 will not get another turn if Player 2 solves it, then that doesn't solve the problem at all. The problem is that when the solution can be determined with one more question, then there is a disincentive to ask that question, and instead everyone asks useless things. The proposed solution does not change that - you still don't want to be the one to ask the question that makes the puzzle solvable regardless of your position in turn order.

If you are saying that everyone gets one more turn after the solution is guessed, then I think that makes sense.

I'm not completely clear on what the suggestion is.

[nccc]

will there be too many ties?

[_mg6maciej_]

BGG users favor this game for 2 players: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/437781/digit-code (100% best 2p, 100% not recommended 3+p)

The root cause of all problems is that BGA implementation uses master code for all players count in both this game and Orapa Mine. This is fine for solo game, which is a puzzle where you challenge yourself to ask as few questions as possible.

A clean solution would be to use a house rule where a player tries to guess the code of the player to the left or right as described here: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/350825 ... us-players, bringing the best experience (2p game) to all player count games.

This doesn't prevent solver users from winning every time, but at least stalling and/or guessing and winning by pure chance when there are only 3-5 possible codes left would not be a thing anymore.

And coming up with a good code (or shape layout in Orapa Mine) seems fun too.

[shinysunS2]

The planned adjustment is: when a player declares and correctly guesses the code, the remaining players in that round will also be given a chance to guess, and if correct, all will be considered winners.

If the "remaining players in the round" means that everyone gets an equal number of turns in the game so that Player 1 will not get another turn if Player 2 solves it, then that doesn't solve the problem at all. The problem is that when the solution can be determined with one more question, then there is a disincentive to ask that question, and instead everyone asks useless things. The proposed solution does not change that - you still don't want to be the one to ask the question that makes the puzzle solvable regardless of your position in turn order.

If you are saying that everyone gets one more turn after the solution is guessed, then I think that makes sense.

I'm not completely clear on what the suggestion is.

If you are saying that everyone gets one more turn after the solution is guessed, then I think that makes sense.

We're talking about this. one more guess after the solution.

[shinysunS2]

BGG users favor this game for 2 players: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/437781/digit-code (100% best 2p, 100% not recommended 3+p)

The root cause of all problems is that BGA implementation uses master code for all players count in both this game and Orapa Mine. This is fine for solo game, which is a puzzle where you challenge yourself to ask as few questions as possible.

A clean solution would be to use a house rule where a player tries to guess the code of the player to the left or right as described here: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/350825 ... us-players, bringing the best experience (2p game) to all player count games.

This doesn't prevent solver users from winning every time, but at least stalling and/or guessing and winning by pure chance when there are only 3-5 possible codes left would not be a thing anymore.

And coming up with a good code (or shape layout in Orapa Mine) seems fun too.

We're checking with the developers that revive 2 player game (only 2 player game) guess the each other's code, Originally. but It's not easy for us. but We'll try. And notice to everybody.

[Lucygoo]

The planned adjustment is: when a player declares and correctly guesses the code, the remaining players in that round will also be given a chance to guess, and if correct, all will be considered winners.

That sounds great! At the moment inevitably you end up in a situation where you don’t want to ask what you know will be the final question because it gives your opponents a massive advantage. So you end up having to ask a non-useful question or just guessing.

[smallman]

Sigh, this change is terrible. It went from fair, to having a HUGE advantage to be last player. Best way to make this a competitive game, would allow anyone to submit an answer, even if not own turn, fastest wins.

[CraftyCatNap]

I've played a few times now with the new 2 player change, and all games end in a tie. Which means my ELO has decreased, because I was playing against people with a lower ELO. A tie is boring. Ugh. Anyone else have this issue?

[MarieMaria]

Hi,
I tried the new two-player change.

I suggest giving the other player the chance to propose a solution only if they are the second player (to make it fair and give them the same number of chances). But if the second player suggests the right answer, the game is over.

[Lipoyu158]

I think in this constellation the starting player has a major disadvantage.
You don‘t have a bonus by starting, since the information you gain is public. Still you may get less information, when you answer a question and the second player solves it without you having another chance to solve by yourself.

I would prefer to have every player to have another guess at the code, when you want to keep like this that you want to have the possibility of a tie. It feels more fair than the rule change right now.