annoying bad luck

[relaxed-llama112]

Makes sense to me. When tens of thousands of players play millions of games, improbable things happen sometimes.

You don't get my point. A good board game that challenges players' intelligence can certainly allow for luck, but it shouldn't introduce completely unreasonable, thoughtless, and sudden game-changing situations at the very end. Such moments render all the players' previous planning and strategic efforts meaningless. Games should be designed so that luck provides players with a certain advantage, requiring them to still think strategically even when fortunate. However, it should not grant absolute, irreversible, effortlessly obtained advantages, especially in the final stages.

When you add luck to a game, you run the risk of nonsense happening. Better games reduce that risk, but eliminating it entirely tends to be impractical, there's too many ways things can line up where things are in the air and the wrong flip seals the deal. That said, you're underselling your influence in that game. You had a time to counterreserve their finishing 3 point white, while meeting the token requirement to buy the 2 point red for 5 black next turn, (edit, they now need to realize they have to push for the 5/3 green 2 pointer to go for the tiebreaker win.) There was still more to squeeze out of them to make that finish harder. They also should not have been able to get that close. You had defensive options to keep them pinned down given their linear attack. One notable example was move 25, where you failed to pick up tokens to defensively block red/black at minimum while acquiring pressure for your multiple black threats. That 5 pointer only is a brutal finish for a player with overwhelming strong red and passable enough black that even has enough points for 5 to be enough to get them there. They have to set the card up for it to work. What was lucky was that the card matched the set-up they used for previous cards. They were quite lucky to get the win, but they still had no business winning that game even with that favorable flip.

I don't understand what you mean by the mistake in step 25. When the opponent held a 4-point black card, my optimal defensive strategy was to acquire a 1-point red card and hold a 4-point white card. In fact, this advantage persisted throughout. Although the opponent still completed the 4-point black card, the opponent clearly hadn't considered the subsequent offensive, which should have been unsustainable. I believe the worst-case scenario at that point would have been a 2-point white card requiring a red purchase. Instead, extremely unfortunately, another 5-point black card appeared. The moment that card surfaced, I knew I was done.

Games reliant on luck inherently cannot prevent fortuitous events logically. Better design should confine the “absolute advantage” of luck to the early or mid-game phases. That's why the expansion attempts to introduce more mechanics to increase strategic complexity and planning depth. Though I haven't played the expansion extensively, its effectiveness remains somewhat limited. However, I personally believe the “Fortress” edition represents a similar attempt.

[relaxed-llama112]

https://boardgamearena.com/gamereview?table=737246414

It happened again. The 5points black card is extremely deadly, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Makes sense to me. When tens of thousands of players play millions of games, improbable things happen sometimes.

You don't get my point. A good board game that challenges players' intelligence can certainly allow for luck, but it shouldn't introduce completely unreasonable, thoughtless, and sudden game-changing situations at the very end. Such moments render all the players' previous planning and strategic efforts meaningless. Games should be designed so that luck provides players with a certain advantage, requiring them to still think strategically even when fortunate. However, it should not grant absolute, irreversible, effortlessly obtained advantages, especially in the final stages.

Put simply, a truly spectacular comeback is when unexpected techniques and moves are executed in the final moments, turning the tide miraculously to secure victory. These are often the greatest moments in gaming—always thrilling and forever memorable—because they showcase not only the player's intelligence and skill but also highlight the excellence of game design. This keeps both players and spectators guessing until the very last second about who will emerge victorious. However, this effect is never achieved by relying on “luck.”

When a game allows a player to secure an absolute advantage and pull off a reversal victory in the final stages through completely arbitrary “luck,” it becomes exceptionally tedious and uninteresting. If this occurs frequently, it mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point.

[FrankJones]

Makes sense to me. When tens of thousands of players play millions of games, improbable things happen sometimes.

You don't get my point. A good board game that challenges players' intelligence can certainly allow for luck, but it shouldn't introduce completely unreasonable, thoughtless, and sudden game-changing situations at the very end. Such moments render all the players' previous planning and strategic efforts meaningless. Games should be designed so that luck provides players with a certain advantage, requiring them to still think strategically even when fortunate. However, it should not grant absolute, irreversible, effortlessly obtained advantages, especially in the final stages.

Put simply, a truly spectacular comeback is when unexpected techniques and moves are executed in the final moments, turning the tide miraculously to secure victory. These are often the greatest moments in gaming—always thrilling and forever memorable—because they showcase not only the player's intelligence and skill but also highlight the excellence of game design. This keeps both players and spectators guessing until the very last second about who will emerge victorious. However, this effect is never achieved by relying on “luck.”

When a game allows a player to secure an absolute advantage and pull off a reversal victory in the final stages through completely arbitrary “luck,” it becomes exceptionally tedious and uninteresting. If this occurs frequently, it mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point.

Well, you and Ceaseless are very high-ranked Splendor players, so I'll leave it to the two of you to determine whether you should have won the game anyway. I'm not good enough at the game to know one way or t he other.


But, does this (possible) issue happen frequently enough such that it, as you say, "mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point"?

If the probability of drawing a needed card in Splendor is 1 / 15, then on average it will happen one time out of 15, right? Is that too often for you? You have a nearly 700 Elo in the game, so it seems to me that you find ways to play well enough that this random luck you'
are talking about doesn't derail your games all that often.

[relaxed-llama112]

You don't get my point. A good board game that challenges players' intelligence can certainly allow for luck, but it shouldn't introduce completely unreasonable, thoughtless, and sudden game-changing situations at the very end. Such moments render all the players' previous planning and strategic efforts meaningless. Games should be designed so that luck provides players with a certain advantage, requiring them to still think strategically even when fortunate. However, it should not grant absolute, irreversible, effortlessly obtained advantages, especially in the final stages.

Put simply, a truly spectacular comeback is when unexpected techniques and moves are executed in the final moments, turning the tide miraculously to secure victory. These are often the greatest moments in gaming—always thrilling and forever memorable—because they showcase not only the player's intelligence and skill but also highlight the excellence of game design. This keeps both players and spectators guessing until the very last second about who will emerge victorious. However, this effect is never achieved by relying on “luck.”

When a game allows a player to secure an absolute advantage and pull off a reversal victory in the final stages through completely arbitrary “luck,” it becomes exceptionally tedious and uninteresting. If this occurs frequently, it mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point.

Well, you and Ceaseless are very high-ranked Splendor players, so I'll leave it to the two of you to determine whether you should have won the game anyway. I'm not good enough at the game to know one way or t he other.


But, does this (possible) issue happen frequently enough such that it, as you say, "mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point"?

If the probability of drawing a needed card in Splendor is 1 / 15, then on average it will happen one time out of 15, right? Is that too often for you? You have a nearly 700 Elo in the game, so it seems to me that you find ways to play well enough that this random luck you'
are talking about doesn't derail your games all that often.

Ha ha, it's not just a simple 1/15. You haven't factored in how each card's different value and the game's evolving state affect the odds.

The key is not to underestimate player complaints. Many game improvements stem from (especially veteran) players' feedback and grievances. This drives game refinement. That's why many game companies now even hire professional players to test their games for flaws or bugs that significantly diminish gameplay enjoyment.

Don't misunderstand—I don't dislike Splendor. If I did, I wouldn't have played it for so long. Its fascination is obvious, but after so many games, I believe its most glaring flaw is precisely the issue I mentioned. It should be fixed and eliminated.

[FrankJones]

Ha ha, it's not just a simple 1/15. You haven't factored in how each card's different value and the game's evolving state affect the odds.

The key is not to underestimate player complaints. Many game improvements stem from (especially veteran) players' feedback and grievances. This drives game refinement. That's why many game companies now even hire professional players to test their games for flaws or bugs that significantly diminish gameplay enjoyment.

Don't misunderstand—I don't dislike Splendor. If I did, I wouldn't have played it for so long. Its fascination is obvious, but after so many games, I believe its most glaring flaw is precisely the issue I mentioned. It should be fixed and eliminated.

I agree. I've actually been beating that same drum with regard to one of my favorite games that has a similar glaring flaw that can be easily fixed. (Aquatica).

Admittedly, I might have misunderstood your game situation. I thought it was a case of the opponent having no play other than a blind reserve from row 2, needing one specific card that would win the game if drawn, but would lose if that one card were not drawn. Which is a possible scenario in Splendor, and would be frustrating for sure, but not all that improbable.

It sounds as though the sequence you're describing involved multiple different things, which, yes, would mean that it would have been more unlucky than just a 1 / 15 (as with my Carcassone example).

I'm interested in the game analysis, since Ceaseless seems to think you should have won anyway. MY first thought was, "well, if Ceaseless says it should have been a win, that's good enough for me." But then I checked your rating in the game and saw your own high level. So, now I'm very curious to review the game carefully and learn from the analysis you have both posted. I'm only rated 305, and I got there only after learning from forum posts in which Ceaseless provided analysis and advice. Splendor is one of my weaker games, and I have not tried any of the expansions.

If there are simple ways to minimize the luck factor in a game, I'm all for it. There are some very popular games in which this is not really possible. Terraforming Mars and Earth come to mind. I am decent at Terraforming Mars (500+ Elo), but I do find some games frustrating because I feel as though I have zero control over the outcome. That said, there are players who are able to remain in the 700 Elo range, so I must be missing some key plays.

I'm in the top 1% in "Earth", and I enjoy the game, but there are games where I have zero chance to win and no control over the outcome. And there's no way to fix it, because there are way too many "broken" cards and way too much of the game relies on partially or completely random card draws combined with somewhat arbitrary goals that constitute a high percentage of the game's points.

So, in summary, I agree with your post in principle. In fact, Splendor is a perfect example of my frustration with the game I mentioned, Aquatica. I often use Splendor as an example. Imagine Splendor without the equalization of turns. Player 1 gets to go first, AND, if player 1 triggers end game, each player gets one more turn, meaning player 1 ends up with an extra turn (and likely a very high-scoring one).

Player 2 would pretty much never win right? It would be lidicrous to not complete the round with everyone having equal turns.

Well, that's Aquatica. A wonderful, creative, fascinating game with deep strategy, and yet there is no equalization of turns. Guess how that turns out? I am nearly unbeatable as player 1. I have lost once as player 1, ever. And I've stopped player ranked games, despite being a top 5 player on the site (and in my opinion, I'm the best ). Because, I have no interest in playing another top player, randomly being selected as player 2, and losing with little control over the outcome, and then not being offered a rematch with player order switched.

And all we need to do is equalize the turns, which I've been begging the designer to do, but to no avail. Despite my overwhelming statistics and experience showing how insurmountable the player 1 advantage is.

So, I hear what you're saying. I apologize for coming off as dismissive initially. I enjoy some abstract games with zero luck (Pente, Connect6, and to some extent, chess). If you check my profile, you'll see I am difficult to beat in Pente or Connect6. I think I am 33-0 with one draw.

But I prefer thematic strategy games like Wingspan, Earth, Terraforming Mars. And I seek thematic strategy games with zero or close to zero luck factor. Difficult to do, since most thematic strategy games involve cards or tiles.

[Ceaseless]

You don't get my point. A good board game that challenges players' intelligence can certainly allow for luck, but it shouldn't introduce completely unreasonable, thoughtless, and sudden game-changing situations at the very end. Such moments render all the players' previous planning and strategic efforts meaningless. Games should be designed so that luck provides players with a certain advantage, requiring them to still think strategically even when fortunate. However, it should not grant absolute, irreversible, effortlessly obtained advantages, especially in the final stages.

When you add luck to a game, you run the risk of nonsense happening. Better games reduce that risk, but eliminating it entirely tends to be impractical, there's too many ways things can line up where things are in the air and the wrong flip seals the deal. That said, you're underselling your influence in that game. You had a time to counterreserve their finishing 3 point white, while meeting the token requirement to buy the 2 point red for 5 black next turn, (edit, they now need to realize they have to push for the 5/3 green 2 pointer to go for the tiebreaker win.) There was still more to squeeze out of them to make that finish harder. They also should not have been able to get that close. You had defensive options to keep them pinned down given their linear attack. One notable example was move 25, where you failed to pick up tokens to defensively block red/black at minimum while acquiring pressure for your multiple black threats. That 5 pointer only is a brutal finish for a player with overwhelming strong red and passable enough black that even has enough points for 5 to be enough to get them there. They have to set the card up for it to work. What was lucky was that the card matched the set-up they used for previous cards. They were quite lucky to get the win, but they still had no business winning that game even with that favorable flip.

I don't understand what you mean by the mistake in step 25. When the opponent held a 4-point black card, my optimal defensive strategy was to acquire a 1-point red card and hold a 4-point white card. In fact, this advantage persisted throughout. Although the opponent still completed the 4-point black card, the opponent clearly hadn't considered the subsequent offensive, which should have been unsustainable. I believe the worst-case scenario at that point would have been a 2-point white card requiring a red purchase. Instead, extremely unfortunately, another 5-point black card appeared. The moment that card surfaced, I knew I was done.

Games reliant on luck inherently cannot prevent fortuitous events logically. Better design should confine the “absolute advantage” of luck to the early or mid-game phases. That's why the expansion attempts to introduce more mechanics to increase strategic complexity and planning depth. Though I haven't played the expansion extensively, its effectiveness remains somewhat limited. However, I personally believe the “Fortress” edition represents a similar attempt.

There's no rush to acquire the red card you bought that turn, they aren't in a place to buy it and it's not that great for them right now anyways. The optimal defensive strategy was to take the red and black tokens they need to buy the 4 point black they were holding. If you pick up a white token for token #3 they can't even stop you from buying a 4-point white next turn if you wanted to.

Makes sense to me. When tens of thousands of players play millions of games, improbable things happen sometimes.

You don't get my point. A good board game that challenges players' intelligence can certainly allow for luck, but it shouldn't introduce completely unreasonable, thoughtless, and sudden game-changing situations at the very end. Such moments render all the players' previous planning and strategic efforts meaningless. Games should be designed so that luck provides players with a certain advantage, requiring them to still think strategically even when fortunate. However, it should not grant absolute, irreversible, effortlessly obtained advantages, especially in the final stages.

Put simply, a truly spectacular comeback is when unexpected techniques and moves are executed in the final moments, turning the tide miraculously to secure victory. These are often the greatest moments in gaming—always thrilling and forever memorable—because they showcase not only the player's intelligence and skill but also highlight the excellence of game design. This keeps both players and spectators guessing until the very last second about who will emerge victorious. However, this effect is never achieved by relying on “luck.”

When a game allows a player to secure an absolute advantage and pull off a reversal victory in the final stages through completely arbitrary “luck,” it becomes exceptionally tedious and uninteresting. If this occurs frequently, it mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point.

What you describe doesn't happen frequently though.

Put simply, a truly spectacular comeback is when unexpected techniques and moves are executed in the final moments, turning the tide miraculously to secure victory. These are often the greatest moments in gaming—always thrilling and forever memorable—because they showcase not only the player's intelligence and skill but also highlight the excellence of game design. This keeps both players and spectators guessing until the very last second about who will emerge victorious. However, this effect is never achieved by relying on “luck.”

When a game allows a player to secure an absolute advantage and pull off a reversal victory in the final stages through completely arbitrary “luck,” it becomes exceptionally tedious and uninteresting. If this occurs frequently, it mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point.

Well, you and Ceaseless are very high-ranked Splendor players, so I'll leave it to the two of you to determine whether you should have won the game anyway. I'm not good enough at the game to know one way or t he other.


But, does this (possible) issue happen frequently enough such that it, as you say, "mocks all the effort and skill a player has invested up to that point"?

If the probability of drawing a needed card in Splendor is 1 / 15, then on average it will happen one time out of 15, right? Is that too often for you? You have a nearly 700 Elo in the game, so it seems to me that you find ways to play well enough that this random luck you'
are talking about doesn't derail your games all that often.

Ha ha, it's not just a simple 1/15. You haven't factored in how each card's different value and the game's evolving state affect the odds.

The key is not to underestimate player complaints. Many game improvements stem from (especially veteran) players' feedback and grievances. This drives game refinement. That's why many game companies now even hire professional players to test their games for flaws or bugs that significantly diminish gameplay enjoyment.

Don't misunderstand—I don't dislike Splendor. If I did, I wouldn't have played it for so long. Its fascination is obvious, but after so many games, I believe its most glaring flaw is precisely the issue I mentioned. It should be fixed and eliminated.

All you said is that you've had some rounds of bad luck, I didn't see any suggestions on how that would be eliminated.