Board Game Arena

i see it now thank you very much!!!

Interestingly enough, in my last 10 games of Builders, I have NEVER been first. But I won all of them .

I personally prefer to be last because it is far easier to "snipe" the game and to rush to 17 points without other players being able to counteract. Even if the first players rush to the good workers, the game is about matching constructions with workers. I have been able to win against opponents that took the masters with lesser but better invested workers.

Lymon Flowers wrote: ↑04 February 2021, 16:57 Interestingly enough, in my last 10 games of Builders, I have NEVER been first. But I won all of them .

I personally prefer to be last because it is far easier to "snipe" the game and to rush to 17 points without other players being able to counteract. Even if the first players rush to the good workers, the game is about matching constructions with workers. I have been able to win against opponents that took the masters with lesser but better invested workers.

Here we are four years later and I went to look at your record. You never once played this version of builders. You played a different version you won at.

JoysJoy wrote: ↑25 August 2024, 00:16

Lymon Flowers wrote: ↑04 February 2021, 16:57 Interestingly enough, in my last 10 games of Builders, I have NEVER been first. But I won all of them .

I personally prefer to be last because it is far easier to "snipe" the game and to rush to 17 points without other players being able to counteract. Even if the first players rush to the good workers, the game is about matching constructions with workers. I have been able to win against opponents that took the masters with lesser but better invested workers.

Here we are four years later and I went to look at your record. You never once played this version of builders. You played a different version you won at.

https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... finished=0

The game record doesn't agree

Well, it doesn't agree with the "I won them all" part either

When you are playing someone with your skill level, the only difference here is luck and making lucky guesses. If the game starts with a good selection of cards, then yeah, the first choosing will have some advantage in principle. But what if the nice set of cards come just after the first player have had to go through a bad selection? Then is the second who had the advantage.
It is just that we only pay attention to the 1st scenario because is obvious, very noticeable; whereas the second, well, it looks like we are doing good in the game. But to me, it is just the same.
I mean, you might be right, but I think this is just a game and the key is not to get frustrated.
The real difference is who you play with. I play many games, over 2400 by now, I make many wins but still, but there are some people to whom I lose more than win. That could be frustrating, unless you take as it is, just a game and enjoy it.
It is a cards game, luck is there, is good to reduce luck factor as much as possible, I agree, but it is always going to be a factor and the key is relax, enjoy and don't get frustrated.

I'd much rather play "The Builders: Antiquity" because it is far more balanced and much less luck. There are many options to enhance your positions by buying tools, prisoners, and university. But not so many people play it which really surprises me. Why Why Why? Antiquities is the same game but so much better because it was designed to be much better balanced. Can never find enough people to play it sadly.

As you get more experience playing the game, luck becomes less a factor. And there's no particular advantage to going first, regardless of whether there are masters available. I've won many games without recruiting a single master. Antiquity takes an elegantly simple game of probability estimation and pattern recognition and makes it unnecessarily complex. I'd argue that luck is more determinative in Antiquities.