4th seat compensation

[Lumin_S]

We've been through a bunch of stats threads, and 4th seat has been underperforming consistently every time, across different AAS modes, different banlists, and different draft formats.

In addition, why is the stats even needed to prove this? It is very clear simply by reading the rules that second seat is better than third, and third better than fourth.

I have a friend who even will quit turn 1 when given 4th seat unless they get a very good draft. I am not defending my friend's behavior, but it should be clear the 4th seat problem is bad enough it is negatively affecting the enjoyment of the game.

I think something should be done about this, especially for competitive play, where players should start on an even playing field. +1f, win tiebreakers, all fine.

My preferred solution is the "snake rule", where all players start with 3 food. On turn 1, the first person is played in 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st order. The second person is then played in the normal 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th order, and the normal order is followed for the rest of the game.

Well there sure is plenty to address here.

1. Stats help prove 4th seat disadvantage because it is theoretically possible for early seats to be at a disadvantage.
2. Your friend needs a serious change of attitude - if they aren't willing to play nearly 25% of games they join, that's not acceptable and they shouldn't play Agricola in the first place.
3. While there is a confirmed advantage due to starting turn order, I suspect the differences are actually quite small compared to most multiplayer board games. Do you know of a more balanced multiplayer board game? Any change to the rules, such as +1f, could create a less-balanced result. Balancing complex board games to such a fine degree is incredibly, almost unbelievably difficult.
4. In live play you're welcome to choose whatever your group likes. The "best fix" I've seen involves player 4 being given the option to copy player 3's action while occupying a different action space of their choice - but this is very much a house rule. At the WBC tournament, the rule is that player 4 wins all tiebreakers.

[MasN]

Do you know of a more balanced multiplayer board game?

If we're going purely off seat order (and not, for instance, starting hand RNG), I'd have a harder time naming games that -aren't- better balanced.
TM. The only real advantage the first player gets is the ability to place their ocean on the 2 cards space. Extremely rare is the case two people are racing to that. It gets a bit worse as you add expansions.
I've been playing strands lately, the balance is incredibly good.
Go is better balanced, but you can say that doesn't really count due to komi.
Ark Nova is better balanced at higher player counts, but pretty badly balanced at 2p. (Publishers keep giving starting bonuses purely on seat number, and forget they are implicitly valuing a turn at 2/3/4 appeal depending on player count. They should learn to stop doing that.)
I've been playing a bunch of 18USA recently, there's in theory a slight advantage to being first to the private auction, but it's definitely not enough to be noticeable, which puts it ahead on agricola.
Pretty much any game that uses pie rule or an auction. (There's a LOT of games in this category.)

List of games off the top of my head which do starting seat order even worse than agricola: Chess, T'zolkin, Space Station Phoenix, probably Beyond the Sun (this one is debatable). Maybe New Frontiers if using the retreat into isolation side, maybe Res Arcana if there's a pop multiple players want to race to on turn 1.

The reason I bump this thread is that I'm not free to choose whichever fix I like on BGA. I'm asking for -a- fix, any is acceptable. 4th player copies 3rd player's action is fine by me, 4th player wins tiebreakers is fine by me.

Asking a question about the copying fix though. Is the 4th player allowed to copy the third player's first action, or second action, or both? And if they can copy the second action, can it be the meeting place? If not, doesn't this leave the problem where the first two players take 2w and 2c, the third player takes meeting place, and the 4th player is left with 2f, 1r, or plow as options?

[alexwjb]

There are various levels to this.

If there is a fix: I support 4th seat wins tiebreakers. This has the advantage of not changing anything except who is awarded the win at the end, so it is very unlikely to lead to unexpected new problems.

Will there be a fix: No, unless the publisher wants it. In general, BGA does not change game rules without publisher approval. For example, the publishers were asked, and approved, the recent weak card banlist. I have no idea where they would stand on this.

Should there be a fix: I don't really mind either way. 0.5 points is meaningful but small enough that I don't think the problem is crucial. The game has tonnes of variance anyway. Sometimes the person in the seat after you is a start player monster. Sometimes a 100 elo player is the one passing to you in the draft and you get a completely broken hand. These things have a much bigger effect on the game outcome than the 4th seat. (As I know all too well, having horribly lost and easily won those two game situations recently!)

[alexwjb]

To gauge interest in this, I have made a formal suggestion to implement two alternatives: 4th seat wins tiebreakers, and 4th seat starts with 4 food:

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=187950

Please vote for it if you would like this option!

[alsozatch]

Simplicity is important, and I have not seen a strong reason as to why 1 extra food for 4th seat would be too strong. We have a wonderful digital implementation that can give us new winrate stats if the rule change is approved, and I’m all in favor of that.

[JustYellow]

Simplicity is important, and I have not seen a strong reason as to why 1 extra food for 4th seat would be too strong. We have a wonderful digital implementation that can give us new winrate stats if the rule change is approved, and I’m all in favor of that.

Agree.
It's simpler, one doesn't have to keep track of it during the game and it was the way the developers decided to differentiate 1st from the other seats anyway.
Obviously, starting the game with 12 food instead of 11 might have bigger consequences but we could try to evaluate them through experience.

[MasN]

But even if you fix 4th seat that way, 2nd seat will still be clearly better than 3rd, with the better order and same food.

[alexwjb]

But even if you fix 4th seat that way, 2nd seat will still be clearly better than 3rd, with the better order and same food.

It’s true the 2nd seat is better, but by a much smaller margin according to the latest stats.

[torvaldur_makan]

From the data, is it possible to see if a player won on tiebreaker or not? If so, it should be possible to calculate the impact a tiebreaker change would have on winrate for 4th seat.

Of course, with a rule change, maybe it would have changed decisions a player made. But it would give an indication.