Only one winner

[OptimusMyChild]

Had a thought and maybe it’s already been proposed but wouldn’t it make sense to only have one winner and the rest tie for second in KOT? There are way too many games that people are just playing for second to keep their ranking. This defeats the purpose of KOT. First is meant to be brought down rather than have people help them win so they can secure second. This would allow more balance with people trying to win with points or with damage as right now it is safer to go points but the purpose of the game is that either should be viable to win.

I’ve seen multiple times that someone will just yield Tokyo to give the last point to first because they are in second and will be punished less by just ending the game.

[FalmarMor]

I agree strongly with this suggestion. King of Tokyo is a game where 1 player wins & the rest are nonwinners. (The hint is in the name!)

This implementation incentivises trying to come 2nd. Incentivising players to sometimes play in a way that they will be a nonwinner damages the gameplay, and reduces the enjoyment & playability.

[Mathew5000]

Had a thought and maybe it’s already been proposed but wouldn’t it make sense to only have one winner and the rest tie for second in KOT? There are way too many games that people are just playing for second to keep their ranking. This defeats the purpose of KOT. First is meant to be brought down rather than have people help them win so they can secure second. This would allow more balance with people trying to win with points or with damage as right now it is safer to go points but the purpose of the game is that either should be viable to win.

I’ve seen multiple times that someone will just yield Tokyo to give the last point to first because they are in second and will be punished less by just ending the game.

I agree: all the non-winners at a table (even if eliminated early in the game) should be deemed to have tied for second. But the point is controversial; see https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31413

King of Tokyo is just one of many games that plays differently when some players are happy to finish second rather than maximizing their probability of winning.

[OptimusMyChild]

King of Tokyo is just one of many games that plays differently when some players are happy to finish second rather than maximizing their probability of winning.

Good point with that thread. I do think KoT is a little different with the aspect of someone could be knocked out but get the argument for the other side more now.

[William Oilaven]

I have advocated for this quite a few times on this forum, but I don't think BGA is ever going to do something about this. I suppose it's a one size fits all ELO system, and nobody cares enough about it breaking KoT.

And it really does break the game. In RL 3 player game, if one player gets ahead in points too quickly, the other two players would both start attacking Tokyo to slow him down. The player ahead would have to give up Tokyo and focus on not dying instead of going for points. It balances out everyone's chances of winning. It offers multiple ways of winning the game.

In BGA, if you try attack the player who is the farthest ahead, the third player will just laugh at you and go for points, ensuring his second place. The BGA point system breaks the game balance, and breaks all game strategies, except for rolling as many 3's as you can. Even with expansions, it's still not the same.

[thoun]

In fact the game was like this at the very beginning. But it was so hard to get up in the ranking that a lot of people said they wouldn't play again if we didn't change it.

[desjob]

I very strongly agree.

This is my experience:

I feel I have to choose between playing for fun (playing for first place whatever it takes), or playing for ranking points (playing to not become 4th or 3rd).

Choosing to play aggressive often results in an all-or-nothing outcome, and it's detrimental to your ranking points because coming in 4th when you're unable to kill is punished so hard in ranking points.

Being forced to play for "not becoming 3rd/4th" makes the game much less enjoyable, but because I'm ranked in the top 20 the competitive mindset takes over so I do it anyway.

[TheScalpel]

I strongly agree with this.

Energy and claws are dead sides on the die in most games in arena, pick 1, 2 or 3 and reroll... maybe hearts if people around the board accidentally hit many claws on the last reroll.

I am considering stopping playing because of this, as several strategies in arena are non-viable (outside the extreme edge cases), which makes it very much against the games design. Very single minded (just get points! oh and cultist tokens so you can reroll for more points in the endgame).