Carcassononne, first player

[dudi2]

I've decided to stop campaigning to try to get you guys to change the Takenoko rules, but there are multiple ways in which they do not match any official variant (one of which significantly impacts strategy). When I pointed this out, I was told essentially "Gee, looks like you are right, but we like it this way so we aren't going to change it." There are also games with unfixed rules bugs that have been known/reported for years now.

Seems that you mean your contribution in the discussion of bug https://de.boardgamearena.com#!bug?id=1594 (which in fact is not a bug):

In any case, please stop upvoting this as it is NOT a bug, and there are multiple rules that are still not implemented correctly in this game (can still draw Panda objectives when you already have the bamboo to complete them [should be disallowed], cannot place plot improvements upon first placing a plot if it is immediately irrigated [should be allowed], cannot choose order unchosen plots are placed in at the bottom of the stack).

It seems, that the problem arises from translation bugs in the official rules of the game.

- can still draw Panda objectives when you already have the bamboo to complete them [should be disallowed]
https://de.boardgamearena.com#!bug?id=576&vote (only 3 votes)
Have not found anything about this in the official rules. Without the FAQ I would assume that it should be allowed.

- cannot place plot improvements upon first placing a plot if it is immediately irrigated [should be allowed]
https://de.boardgamearena.com#!bug?id=3868 (only 1 vote)
Here french rules do not have a detailled enough rule. As the authors are french, perhaps the rules were specified in later added translations of the rules. The game developer was perhaps a french person and did not know about the specification in the translation.
As written by sprockitz there, it seems to be possible in BGA implementation. As in the rule the bamboo grows immediately after placing, you have to put the improvement before placing the plot. So I think this is implemented correctly.

- cannot choose order unchosen plots are placed in at the bottom of the stack)
Here in official german rule is a bug, as there the one should add the cards on top (instead of below) the card stack:
"Man zieht drei Beete, wählt eins davon aus und legt die anderen beiden wieder verdeckt oben auf den Stapel, in beliebiger Reihenfolge."
If the dicarded 2 cards would be placed on top of the stack, the next time these 2 would be taken again together with a 3rd, so the order doesn't matter in german version. Have not found ab bug reported about it (= 0 votes).

http://www.matagot.com/IMG/pdf/takenoko_faq_eng-2.pdf

@veme: Typically the game seems to be developed by some game developer in there free time (e.g. with BGA Studio). BGA itself is only 1 full time person, who cannot work on everything at the same time. If you want to make bugs seen as significant by the corresponding developer, you have to help in the community by motivating other players to vote up a specific bug! If enough players vote up that bug (e.g. 30-50 votes) the priority of this bug gets higher.

[sourisdudesert]

Thanks dudi.

I just want to add that for the "discarded two cards" at Takenoko we asked the publisher specifically and get their authorization for this variant that accelerate a lot the digital adaptation. This is our policy. It doesn't mean there are no bugs, but writing that we are implementing wrong rules on purpose on BGA is a lie.

[veme]

The plot discard rule is very minor, and as dudi pointed out sprockitz informed me of my error about the upgrade placement, I am talking mostly about:

can still draw Panda objectives when you already have the bamboo to complete them [should be disallowed]

Here is the FAQ, which was released 10 months before Takenoko was released on this site:

English - http://www.matagot.com/IMG/pdf/takenoko_faq_eng-2.pdf
French - http://www.matagot.com/IMG/pdf/takenoko_faq_fra-2.pdf

I have already linked to this and explained in a thread which Een posted in, and in a bug report.

Also, dudi, I am not sure what difference it makes how many votes these reports get. Souris said it is policy to use official rule variants, not that it is policy to use official rule variants if they get enough votes. Here is the example I used in the bug report:

I mean, if the rooks in Chess were intentionally allowed to move diagonally on here, and everyone loved it, it would still be a problem for me if I wanted to play Chess. I understand making small rules tweaks to fit the practicalities of the interface, but this is a large rules change and the online medium actually makes this mechanic much easier to implement than in the physical game.

How many votes would diagonally moving rooks need to get before they were a bug? If we can change Takenoko this way because so many people like it (or, more likely, are just unaware), why not discuss changing Carcassonne to be more balanced? It is a much better reason for a rules change, IMO.

[sourisdudesert]

I don't see what's wrong in this. There is an official variant, yes. And we didn't implemented it. According to our policy, we may implement it in the future. Do you see the difference between this and a bug? If you don't, please stop filling bug report and/or vote for bugs.

[veme]

You have the advanced variant partially implemented here.

Official variants:
Normal - Keep all objective cards you draw
Advanced - If you draw an objective card which you already meet the criteria for, return it to the bottom of the deck

Unofficial Variants:
BGA - If you draw an objective card which you already meet the criteria for, return it to the bottom of the deck, unless it is a Panda objective

[sourisdudesert]

BGA - If you draw an objective card which you already meet the criteria for, return it to the bottom of the deck, unless it is a Panda objective

Yes. And there is a reason for this. Some players were using it by taking 2 yellow + 2 green, then draw some panda objectives. Because of these rules, they were only drawing 5/6 points objectives. This is the exact contrary of the spirit of the "advanced variant", which is here to prevent too many random in the game. We wrote to the publisher, and had a lot of discussion about it, and finally we excluded the panda objectives.

[veme]

This is interesting to hear, at least there is a full explanation. When I have played IRL, this strategy is sometimes employed, specifically eating two greens quickly. Never noticed it being terribly open to abuse, but at least this is a type of reasoning I can understand. Perhaps then, you should try to find officially published rules reflecting this, as you advised demiurgsage to do with Carcassonne. Also, this does not answer my point about the priority level of rule bug fixes.

But anyway, I really wasn't trying to hijack this thread; I just have trouble keeping quiet when I see something that looks unfair, especially if it looks like it is misleading in a self-serving way.

[demiurgsage]

Actually there are a lot of unbalanced games on BGA and I understand that even if BGA has an agreement with the game designer it probably won't have people to implement the balanced variant.
As for Carcassonne the advantage of 1st player in 2p game is quite obvious and can be mathematically proved (if it wasn't made before).
In fact as Carcassonne has 71 tiles to play there is a disadvantage for last player in games with 2-4 players.
There are several options how this can be solved. E.g. it can be balanced directly by adding some victory points to last player. It can be balanced by adding tile(s) in order all players have the same number of turns, or by removing tile(s) at random or by choice. In any case it will not take much time to implement the solution. You only need to contact the game designer and receive a permission.