Legendary Inventors (and Ultimate Contest)

[NaceWindu]

Another +1 to changing the font for the 3 and the 5, they are virtually indistinguishable unless you look very, very closely and even then it is hard.

[tomoyuki]

Dear Legendary Inventors developers,

I want to congratulate you to create a game a game in which strategies are balanced to this extent.

I have one suggestion to decrease the effect of luck and make the game more fair: compensate being the 2nd player by giving him 1 point, the 3rd and 4th player by giving them 2-2 points. Having the first turn is not just having almost an extra turn compared to the last player. The first player can put cubes to the invention with best rewards (two 2 tokens for example are very attractive). He can also observe that for example an other player also has an inventor with "2" in mechanics and there is just one invention that requires at least 2 mechanics cubes. And if he observes so, then he will be able to fully use his inventor with "2" in mechanics and the other player won't.
It would be pointless to explain why I suggest 1,2,2 points compensation. I wouldn't even convince myself. In fact, the best solution would be to look at the games played by at least "good player"s and do a statistic showing how much an advantage the first player has. I suggest excluding games played by average players because they might do not understand the possibilities of the first turn and thus fail to take full advantage of it.
I know that in many games the first player has an advantage. In chess for example, there is no way to compensate for that. But in games played for points, it is technically easy and does not change the normal course of the game. For example in the game go the second player is compensated by 6,5 points (the exact amount depends on the tournament).

[FAHoeve]

Though starting later gives an initial disadvatage in the game. Since the game is in multiplayer, those effects naturally balance out during gameplay. The most determining factor for succes is mainly other players contributing to the same inventions you do. Not contributing to the leaders inventions is the most natural move in that sense, thus balancing occurs during the entire game

[braven]

Though starting later gives an initial disadvantage in the game. Since the game is in multiplayer, those effects naturally balance out during game play. The most determining factor for success is mainly other players contributing to the same inventions you do. Not contributing to the leaders inventions is the most natural move in that sense, thus balancing occurs during the entire game

The problem with going last is not just the potential lost turn (this is only a very minor disadvantage). The primary reason it is so harmful is because you lose out on the number tiles (specifically 2s) in the first age. Some inventor sets stall out completely without them, yet every set can use them well and wants them as soon as possible as their highest priority. Even if you pick up a 3 or 4, you can't play them until you get a 2 and even then it is often not as helpful (inventions don't have open spots in the 3/4 range and, if someone has already placed cubes on it, it is even less likely to be helpful). In the second age, those who got the early 2s can safely progress their inventors and use the greater inventor strength to ensure they can claim many of the age 2 number tokens as well. Even if you don't really need any more 2s, it is still a good strategy to take them anyway because you can just convert them to 1s which you also need. You could pick up numbers in age 3, but then you lose out on a lot of points because the cards are worth so much more in age 3 and upgrading inventors is worth so much less because you are doing it just for the (below average) points they provide (relative to actions needed to gain all the tiles) and no longer have time to leverage them to win majorities. In other words, it is always better getting tiles early and cards late and if you don't do that, you will almost certainly lose against a good player.

Special tiles, like knowledge cubes, are just not efficient enough to counter balance this problem since they are a one time use and effectively requires two turns to generate points (points that could have otherwise been earned with a single action if you built up inventors early). Perhaps if knowledge cubes could be contributed to multiple inventions (a different one than you assign your inventor to) they would see more use as something other than a "1" token. As it is, they are mostly a "new player" trap; beginners get tricked into using two actions to do something they could have otherwise accomplished with one action.

Last place is particularly bad with the yellow set because you can't do anything without 2s because of how that set is designed and you really suffer if starting last, making it almost impossible to win. On the other hand, going last with red is not too bad since they don't really need number tiles to be effective because the 6-VP and 3-VP ones only need 1s in the first and second ages; something any tile can become.

The reason blue and purple are the two strongest sets is because they do fine without early twos and threes and, as a result, can do well regardless of seating order. They are flexible early, like Red, but worth more points because you can safely upgrade their 9-VP inventor. You can freely start upgrading their 9-VP inventor in age 1 because they both have two "any tile" upgrade spots on their strongest inventor which is enough to get majorities in age 2 and claim any numbers you missed out on. While blue has some tiny disadvantages (for example, 2 inventors with only a single starting skill), it turns out this is so minor of a hindrance that it doesn't come close to counterbalancing the strengths.

The simplest (but most boring) way to fix this imbalance is to just let yellow go first and green go second. I think I will do this with the physical board game. This ensures all players have a reasonable chance to get the "2" tiles they need to be competitive. UPDATE: I like the idea proposed in a different discussion. Let the players choose their set, starting in reverse turn order. That would require no changes to game mechanics or physical components.

In regards to purposely taking worse moves to avoid helping another player (the supposed leader). I think this is almost always a losing strategy in this type of cooperative game. Denying yourself points to harm another player just helps the other two players (who don't do this) gain advantage over you and you end up in third or fourth instead of second place. You might harm the leader a bit, but you also harm yourself. This only works in 2 player games where hurting your opponent is just as beneficial as helping yourself.

For choosing inventions to contribute to, It is helpful to always consider the tie-breaker for the reward selection order. Generally, you want to place cubes on the inventions of players to your left (the player who plays after you) and avoid those of players on your right (the player who plays right before you). Often there will be no existing open inventions for the player to your left so you must predict their next move based on their best moves and available inventors and tiles and avoid a move that the player on your right can take advantage of. This is most important in the first age where most invention rewards are determined by a two-block tie-breaker most of the time. Another way to win the tiebreaker is to be the one to close out the invention (tactic often used in second and third age) I feel like a lot of players don't consider that subtle, but important, game mechanic when considering their move.

[tomoyuki]

...For choosing inventions to contribute to, It is helpful to always consider the tie-breaker for the reward selection order. Generally, you want to place cubes on the inventions of players to your left (the player who plays after you) and avoid those of players on your right (the player who plays right before you). Often there will be no existing open inventions for the player to your left so you must predict their next move based on their best moves and available inventors and tiles and avoid a move that the player on your right can take advantage of. This is most important in the first age where most invention rewards are determined by a two-block tie-breaker most of the time. Another way to win the tiebreaker is to be the one to close out the invention (tactic often used in second and third age) I feel like a lot of players don't consider that subtle, but important, game mechanic when considering their move.

I agree with braven with almost every of his points (well except that he does not consider compensating the last players simply with points). Indeed 2 progress tokens in the first age are most important. But that also means that sets that require many 2 progress tokens are hard. That's why I am not sure if the blue set stands out.
I would further generalize his point stating that in games where there is 1 winner and everyone else loses (in quantum for example), the first player's advantage might indeed evaporate like xingao said Since the game is in multiplayer, those effects naturally balance out during gameplay However in games where if you are not first, you have to fight for second place (like in legendary inventors), there is absolutely no balancing out.

[braven]

I agree with braven with almost every of his points (well except that he does not consider compensating the last players simply with points). Indeed 2 progress tokens in the first age are most important. But that also means that sets that require many 2 progress tokens are hard. That's why I am not sure if the blue set stands out.
I would further generalize his point stating that in games where there is 1 winner and everyone else loses (in quantum for example), the first player's advantage might indeed evaporate like xingao said Since the game is in multiplayer, those effects naturally balance out during gameplay However in games where if you are not first, you have to fight for second place (like in legendary inventors), there is absolutely no balancing out.

I think the fight for second place is mostly because of the ELO ranking system. I am not sure if everyone would value second as anything but "first loser" otherwise, but that probably varies from person to person. Second place only has meaning if you choose to give it meaning (or care about your ELO rank).

Regarding blue not being the best. I think it is often best if going first or second and that there are better options if going later in turn order. It does require, I believe, four "2" tiles to complete the 9-VP and 6-VP inventors and has two inventors with only a single skill which limits options in the first age. Going last will make it hard to get those 2s without later sacrifices and you might be stuck gathering more first age cards (instead of tiles) than you would like. Of course, you could always just choose not to complete the 6-VP inventor and then you only need two "2"s, which is reasonable, and you can wait until the second age to get them because of the two any-tile upgrade spots on the 9-VP one. Just completing the 9-VP and one of the 3-VP inventors is perfectly reasonable and is how I normally play blue. Overall, I think purple and red are usually better options when going last most of the time.

I am not completely against the idea of giving points as compensation, but it does feel a little artificial to me and I am not sure turn order is equally bad in every game; it really depends on a lot of factors (set order, cards selected, first age chips drawn, number of actual turns, and so forth). Sometimes you will be over-compensating and sometimes under-compensating if you don't consider those other factors.

I think it is better to treat the inventor set, turn order, and first age cards/tiles as a single combined equation and effectively adjust turn order compensation subtly and dynamically. The reverse-order draft system for inventor sets would do this pretty well and, in the very least, no one would ever be stuck with the dreaded "yellow and last turn order" combination again. By giving players the ability to choose their set based on the first age setup, a lot of that initial luck and imbalance is removed. If you disagree with others on which inventor set is best, that is okay because you, the player, can determine your own priorities. Personally, I think no single inventor set is strictly the best in all circumstances, but certain combinations can be very crippling (yellow going last is much worse than red going last). By giving players the ability to choose their set based on the first age setup, a lot of the initial luck and imbalance is removed and a little additional strategy is added.

[Liallan]

I think the fight for second place is mostly because of the ELO ranking system. I am not sure if everyone would value second as anything but "first loser" otherwise, but that probably varies from person to person. Second place only has meaning if you choose to give it meaning (or care about your ELO rank).

I know that I'm in the minority of thinking 2nd place has a meaning, but it does to me. I'm not trying to argue the point about whether it "should" have a meaning, but that you stated if it has meaning, it's because you've "chosen" to give it meaning. I didn't choose to give it meaning. It just has a meaning for me because that happens to be who I am. Saying it was a "choice" is liking saying that I chose to be an animal person. No, I didn't - I just am an animal person. I think your statement is coming from some belief that second place doesn't have a meaning, so it only can if you choose to make it so. Has it occurred to you that someone else simply feels differently about it?

But otherwise, this has been an interesting conversation for a newbie at the game. I just got done playing yellow and did feel like I was having serious trouble upgrading inventors and noticed I was always short of 2's. I figured it was my newbie playing. Yeah, I'm sure it was to some extent, but it's nice to know it might not have been totally me. (In my first game I had blue and was first on turn and still only came in 3rd place, so that was obviously all my doing. LOL. Although I also kept forgetting some rule details. But, I'm happy to say I was already considering the reward-taking tie breaker, so at least something was occurring to me.)

Without really even knowing much strategy, I like the reverse order set picking idea. So that's a reasonable house-rule idea.

In fact, the best solution would be to look at the games played by at least "good player"s and do a statistic showing how much an advantage the first player has. I suggest excluding games played by average players because they might do not understand the possibilities of the first turn and thus fail to take full advantage of it.

Sorry, but while I see most things as being worthy of discussion, if for no other reason than just for the sake of the discussion, I'm not getting the concept here of thinking the designers are going to be reading these forums and even seeing your post, nor that they would actually go through the games here, and I would have to say I think they probably already beta tested the game and that this was probably brought up. And even less likely anyone would find something hidden away in a thread that's not a review thread. Choosing to house-rule something is not exactly the same thing as trying to get them to actually change the rules. Perhaps more worth while to start a discussion on BGG where someone of importance might see it. (Unless you're trying to tell BGA to change the rules?, and they can't just go around changing rules willy nilly.)

[Liallan]

Another +1 to changing the font for the 3 and the 5, they are virtually indistinguishable unless you look very, very closely and even then it is hard.

Another +1.

They are distinguishable if you look very closely - the top is slightly different. But just sitting back and trying to play, you can't see that. Granted, I can do the hovering and see what it's supposed to be, but we shouldn't have to do that. (And since I play turn-based I have to do it every turn.)

[braven]

I think the fight for second place is mostly because of the ELO ranking system. I am not sure if everyone would value second as anything but "first loser" otherwise, but that probably varies from person to person. Second place only has meaning if you choose to give it meaning (or care about your ELO rank).

I know that I'm in the minority of thinking 2nd place has a meaning, but it does to me. I'm not trying to argue the point about whether it "should" have a meaning, but that you stated if it has meaning, it's because you've "chosen" to give it meaning. I didn't choose to give it meaning. It just has a meaning for me because that happens to be who I am. Saying it was a "choice" is liking saying that I chose to be an animal person. No, I didn't - I just am an animal person. I think your statement is coming from some belief that second place doesn't have a meaning, so it only can if you choose to make it so. Has it occurred to you that someone else simply feels differently about it?

I am sorry if I implied that feelings were a choice or that other opinions or feelings were not valid. I think the choice of words I used was poor. The key point I was trying to convey is that the value of 2nd/3rd/4th varies from person to person and that the way the system values each placement can alter the optimal in-game strategy for boosting one's ELO rating. I didn't mean to say that it was a conscience or mutable choice an individual makes.

How a person values 2nd/3rd/4th place can have implications on decision making. For example, if you hate coming in last, you might avoid taking a big risk which could either land you 1st place or last place. Instead, you take a safe move which will almost certainly gain you 2nd place but never 1st place. By harshly punishing players who end up in last place and rewarding second place nearly as much as first place, the ELO system favors those who don't take big risks.

In some cases, playing for the best position instead of first place can lead to a form of "king making". If you are convinced another player will win or is out of reach of you, you may help them further increase their score (by choosing to harm someone else you are competing with instead of them, leaving a good spot open to them so another player doesn't take it, etc). It is actually better to harm players who are already losing so they don't have the opportunity to catch up instead of harming the person ahead of you in score. In "Inventors", that could mean completing the perceived leader's invention instead of the invention of the person in 3rd place at the end of an age when both help you equally (or even if it helps you less!). In a game like Settlers of Catan, this could mean using the "Robber" token to steal from the person in last place instead of the person in first, because you don't think you can't beat them regardless. Game design elements like "The Robber" were intended to slow the leader down so others have a chance to catch up, but when you play for second or third place, it is better to harm the players who are already behind instead of the leader. It is like kicking a person when they are already on the ground just to avoid being in last place yourself.

[ThierryC]

It is like kicking a person when they are already on the ground just to avoid being in last place yourself.

In some sense, that's what is called survival of (all) the fittest (or death of the weakest).
Nature taught us that it's usually fine to only run faster than the slowest to escape one predator; no need to be first (and most exhausted).
Now, one could say a better strategy of survival for a community is to collaborate against the common enemy.
But that basically depends on the rules of the "game", and how individual actors are willing to design their own "subset" of rules (e.g., through communication).