Board Game Arena

If reversed snake is implemented I would prefer that

Reverse snake would be great i agree.

The issue with this snake implementation is that there is no last say in who is first next round as 4th seat. 3w + 2cl is just a bad sequence if that means 1st seat retains start.
First stats posted on discord already showed retaining start player is much more common in arena now. This means you surrender any sort of first room pressure as 4th seat, because you get no reed actions the first 2 rounds. Grabbing a fireplace doesnt win games, first room/grow does.

Snake might feel better, i think it will skew the stats more rather than less to the first seat.

Second seat was always the best, 4th seat worst, that changes now to 1 st best 3rd seat worst, there is no balance change just an inequality redistribution.

Without stats that is pure speculation.

Without snake, seats 1, 2 and 3 are very similar in strength and seat 4 is worst by a lot.

My guess (and it is a guess) is that now the 1 seat is best by some amount, and the other three seats are more equal.

If true, that would be an improvement imo, though others may disagree.

Also: it’s easy to overplay this “game theory disaster” thing. Sp used to be taken by nobody 11% of the time, now it is 22%. A big increase, but it’s hardly happening every game. If the first player does retain start without taking it, they are normally just taking Day Laborer. Also at least the 4th seat got their pick of second actions and actively chose not to start, suggesting they got something else they preferred. Without snake, the 4th seat could both not get start and not get the 2nd action they wanted, which is now impossible.

One more thing - certain boring and predictable openings that wreck the 4th seat (1 seat having Canvas Sack, for example) have been banished.

I also have a worry about the other snake idea (the first farmers are in reverse turn order) which is player confusion - it’s weird for the player with the start player token not to get the first move in the game.

All this said: in general I like pretty much all Agricola variants, and I also think it’s nice just having a different challenge to confront

In the statistics dump of last year for most formats the same outcome as has been the case for 15 years was confirmed. The following pattern is well established. Seat one has a 25,5% chance of winning, seat 2 has 27%. Seat 3 25,5% and seat 4 24%. That may fell quite close but means That if you draft seat 2 verses seat 4 you are 10% more likely to win. The new percentages are speculatory in nature indeed.

However earlier test have also shown that 1 extra food in stage 1 on a large gives 1 VP at the end of the game. In stage 2-4it is half a VP and I. Stage 5-6 it is a third of a VP. That is also the reason behind the extra food on r5 rule for 4th. Since the average score difference was +0.5 for P2 and -0.5 for P4.

To conclude. With the extra food and increase in round 2 situation it seems logical that P1 would benefit massively. My guestimate is that if we would get statistics it would be P1 27.5% P2 25.5% P3 24% and P4 24%. With P1 scoring I bit more than 1vp higher than P3 and P4.

Rustycrab wrote: ↑18 June 2026, 12:50 However earlier test have also shown that 1 extra food in stage 1 on a large gives 1 VP at the end of the game.

Source??


(Edit: if by "earlier test" you mean Original Edition, that is now irrelevant since Revised Edition is far less tight on food.)

Rustycrab wrote: ↑18 June 2026, 12:50 To conclude. With the extra food and increase in round 2 situation it seems logical that P1 would benefit massively.

This ignores the fact they now get the 8th pick action in round 1 rather than the 5th, which is a big negative vs the previous situation.

Also: the round 2 situation is not a clear as you are suggesting. In the data I gathered, the 1 seat was now less likely to be start player in round 2, but much more likely to be 2nd in turn order.

How often are the different seats start player in round 2?
Seat | Standard (n=199) | Snake (n=186)
Seat 1 | 65 (32.7%) | 47 (25.3%)
Seat 2 | 42 (21.1%) | 25 (13.4%)
Seat 3 | 52 (26.1%) | 39 (21.0%)
Seat 4 | 40 (20.1%) | 75 (40.3%)

Given that the second round tends to have 5 premium actions (2r, rsf, 3w, occ, occ), why is it so obvious that it's better for the 1 seat in round 2?

I don't think you can just sum the results of previous experiments to decide what the outcomes will be on winrates. It changes all kinds of things. (I am also highly suspicious of your "1f in stage 1 = 1 VP" estimate. The 2 seat starts with 1 more food than the 1 seat in the standard game and, on average in the last stats, scored 0.18 points more. Is "having" to take rsf vs free occ really 0.82 points worse per game? I seriously doubt it.)

All that said: even on your guesstimates, there is no longer a clear worst seat, which to me is actually an improvement. The misery of the 4th seat in standard is worse, to me, than these problems we are discussing. I think status quo bias is in play.

I personally like snake draft, and while I think p1 and p4 are at an advantage compared to p2 and p3 it's nowhere near as sharp as in default.
The reason I like it is not because it is perfectly fair but because it gives a solid range of openers depending on your position, and a lot of players have agency over how/what they wish to develop.

I think reverse snake would be worse than regular snake, because I can't see myself wanting to be anything other than A in DCBAABCD, and I think D/C both will only really be happy if they have an occ that gives them a tile to play on.

I would personally prefer extending the snaking to another round, ideally I would want to have it for the entirety of stage 1, but I think round 3 and 4 it starts to introduce a lot of toxic dynamics relating to building and the stacking food tiles.

The main point of reversed snake is that D can take the action that is necessary to play it's preferred minor in either round 1or 2. Otherwise it is possible to get locked out of a critical rsf or OCC action for the first 2 rounds or you have to waste a move with bad minor

I think d is in such a bad spot in terms of building the meta will probably settle on taking 3w or wood occ+1r in round 1 to ensure you don't get pushed to grow last..