First player advantage at 7 Wonder Duel - Statistics

[Friedrich73]

I would say a huge advantage.
The game is very luck dependent but beeing the first player is just owerpowered.
Didnt take more than a handful of games to notice this. The statistics should confirm this.

[jean roucas]

being the first player is not the most significant "playing fact" in the victory ... at least from my point of view, maybe the statistics could make me lie

for me it is especially the wonders that make the difference, difficult to win in a ratio of 0 to 4 ("replay" wonders)
it is very easy to beat a player who has already used all of their "replay" wonders at age I or II, especially if the military cards are visible, or if you already have 4 science symbols.

it is also one of the most effective strategies, to keep its "replay" wonders for age III, especially if you have developed a scientific strategy (for me the best way to win as often as possible against average players, who choose not to defend enough against science victory)

after SWD is clearly a game where luck is omnipresent ... and that's why it's a game that makes a lot of talk, and rage
despite that, there are ways of playing, defending, or attacking your opponent, which allows you to expand the range of possibilities, and therefore to depend less on luck, you must always adapt, anticipate, and lay traps for the other

[MoiMagnus]

I've taken the top player of 7 wonder duel (by ELO) and look at their statistics:

Victories from points : 35%
Victories from science : 25%
Victories from conquest : 27%
Victories from politics (Agora) : 0%

Going through the top 10, this seems to be very play-style dependent, but in the end:
(1) A lot of top players reach scientific victories as often as point victories.
(2) A lot of top players almost never win from conquest.
(3) A lot of top players are really balanced in the three style of victories, usually with slightly more victories from points.

Global statistics of wins are:
Victories from points : 59%
Victories from science : 21%
Victories from conquest : 19%
Victories from politics (Agora) : 2%

Note: my personal performances at the 26 games that I did is
Victories from points : 8%
Victories from science : 38%
Victories from conquest : 0%
Victories from politics (Agora) : 33%

[Pistol Star]

I've taken the top player of 7 wonder duel (by ELO) and look at their statistics:

Victories from points : 35%
Victories from science : 25%
Victories from conquest : 27%
Victories from politics (Agora) : 0%

Going through the top 10, this seems to be very play-style dependent, but in the end:
(1) A lot of top players reach scientific victories as often as point victories.
(2) A lot of top players almost never win from conquest.
(3) A lot of top players are really balanced in the three style of victories, usually with slightly more victories from points.

Global statistics of wins are:
Victories from points : 59%
Victories from science : 21%
Victories from conquest : 19%
Victories from politics (Agora) : 2%

Note: my personal performances at the 26 games that I did is
Victories from points : 8%
Victories from science : 38%
Victories from conquest : 0%
Victories from politics (Agora) : 33%

So these are my stats above.
Now at 36% civil, 25% science and 27% conquest (military).

I do also think that on average there is a significant advantage to the first player.
Wonders play a huge role as well obviously.
The 2nd player will still be the favourite in a number of games because of the wonders and science token distribution though.

We should also take into account that the 2nd player will go first into age 2 if nobody plays an extra turn and the 2nd player would not play any shields. That evens things a little bit out, but not enough imho.
There are also often enough good cards (not neccessarily resources only) available in age 1 so that the 2nd player can definitely compete most of the time. There is also the option for the 2nd player to use a strong extra turn wonder (mainly The Temple of Artemis and Piraeus) to turn around a very bad pyramid structure and gain the lead.

So I do think that these hopeless games for the 2nd player are quite rare in reality. They do happen, but rarely enough to not bother me much at all in such a great and fast paced game.
And also the first player must play well to not give any chances to the 2nd player.
I really love the challenge of trying to find and then pull off a way to win in a much worse position. These wins are the sweetest to me. Like a very tough puzzle No mistakes are allowed or we are definitely doomed.

Resources are by far not everything in this game.
As we all know this game has 3 ways to win and lose. Out of these 3 winning conditions 2 of them do not need that many resources to make it work well.
So I do think that most players greatly overrate resources. When you are behind in economy you should often search another way or even multiple ways to at least threat a win. If the first player only cares about resources the 2nd player will often have a pretty easy win.

I am currently at 62 consecutive wins. So roughly half of these games were played by me being the 2nd player.
I can assure you that in the vast majority of games where you find yourself being the 2nd player there are usually many ways to find wins vs non top ranked players. Everyone makes mistakes on all levels
A handful of these wins in my last 62 games were really, really poorly played by myself. It just happened that my opponent played even more poorly and/or that I was lucky after my very poor move(s).

EDIT: My winning streak ended after 75 victories. I was the 2nd player in that loss

[Chris Me]

Hello,
yes, I find being first player is an advantage...but there are many possible strategies for the second player.
What I find much more unbalanced, is a game where one player starts with 3 "replay" wonders and the other with only 1.
In order to avoid that, I would suggest:
- First set of 4 wonders: player 1 decides if he prefers to take 1&4 or 2&3 choices
- Second set of 4 wonders: player 2 decides if he prefers to take 1&4 or 2&3 choices

Currently, that can happens that the same player receives two times the bad set-up (for instance: he must choose 1-4 for the first set while it was more interesting 2-3, and must choose 2-3 for the second set while it was more advantageous 1-4).

I don't know what is your opinion about this.
Maybe that can be another specific post.
See you,
Christophe

[studebaker3945]

I've made a test with my roomate last summer, as we were same level (summer before we played 50 games and we ended up 24-26) and we both understand the importance of the ''replay wonders''.

That summer, we played 50 games, calculating who wins and in wich way (pts, science, war) and if the fact that we start help us, and at least 75% of our winning included that we were also the one starting the game.

Starting is a huge advantage in the first round as the ways it is build, the person that will be the 2nd player will make all the ''reveal''. Therefore, if the ressourses (wood, bricks, etc) are all hide, the 1st player will get them mostly all, and you'll ended up only with the war and the pts cards. Then all the rest of the game will be much harder as your wonders will cost a lot (so big advantage lost here) and you'll pass most of the 2nd round trying to surviving in getting ressource, as the other player can build it's strategy (war, pts or science).

and yes, 3 replay vs no replay wonders is also a huge disadvantage. However, this is less likely to happen than the chance of being player 2.

[ifasoldt]

I've played a lot of duel (over 300 games so far) and am decently highly rated at it (win about 2/3 of my games with a 360 elo, or around #500 on the all time charts), and I think going first is a MASSIVE advantage. To me, it's worth about the same as having an EXTRA 6 coin/extra turn wonder, sometimes as much as having an extra 12 coin/extra turn wonder.

The reason for this is that you completely control the board and will acquire a large resource/gold card/science card advantage unless particularly unlucky. Better players will often counteract this by playing an extra turn wonder as soon as possible to give themselves board control-- but this costs them coin to do so (unless it's the 12 or 6 coin wonder) AND burns an extra turn. And doing this allows the player going first to then go first in the second age (assuming no red cards have been played, normal at better levels), which gives them a small but significant advantage (chance at progress tokens, etc)

It feels to me like going first is the single biggest advantage in the game, and it's actually kinda broken.

[pompom79]

Wow so cool to see all those replies.

Very interesting, I absolutely loved the statistics. (I mostly play this game IRL vs other games like RFTG).

People have detailled pretty well Why starting is such an advantage. I suspect the advantage grows with level. (not sure the stats can verify that)
"play again" wonders are also OP, so we have a home rule as well for them. (1st player advantage can be offset or reinforced by a lucky wonder draw)

And so those 2 rules work for me :
-4 Coins for starting player.
-For each set of 4 wonders at the start, the number of play again wonder has to be even. (Redraw the last one until it is even)

[Jamesnmca]

The biggest balance issue in the game is getting extra turns, either through going first and having greater board manipulation, or through Wonder extra turns which compounds the prior. One simple change to weaken the first turn is that the starting player only gets 6 gold. Giving +1 gold to the 2nd player would allow them to instantly drop a Wonder, which the game designers seem to want to avoid.

You can't really do a lot to weaken an extra turn, and given that so many games (at high ELO games about 65%) end with a military or science victory just adding 1-2 VP or Coins to other cards and/or reducing those on extra turn wonders won't really do much. A few wonders at the extremes of benefit might benefit from those changes, for example Pyramids and Colossus could gain 1-2 VP; Piraeus and Appian Way could lose 1-2.

What can be done is restricting what can be done with an extra turn. One simple change is to prevent chaining wonders. The other is to change the turn order for future ages in the case of a military tie to be the person who has constructed the fewest wonders. This removes a lot of the last turn manipulation, and will generally favor the player who has taken the fewest extra turns since any player who knows what they are doing will try to maximize their extra turns.

This will by no means totally fix balance, but it will move the needle in the right direction.

[frankenStain]

The biggest balance issue in the game is getting extra turns, either through going first and having greater board manipulation, or through Wonder extra turns which compounds the prior. One simple change to weaken the first turn is that the starting player only gets 6 gold. Giving +1 gold to the 2nd player would allow them to instantly drop a Wonder, which the game designers seem to want to avoid.

You can't really do a lot to weaken an extra turn, and given that so many games (at high ELO games about 65%) end with a military or science victory just adding 1-2 VP or Coins to other cards and/or reducing those on extra turn wonders won't really do much. A few wonders at the extremes of benefit might benefit from those changes, for example Pyramids and Colossus could gain 1-2 VP; Piraeus and Appian Way could lose 1-2.

What can be done is restricting what can be done with an extra turn. One simple change is to prevent chaining wonders. The other is to change the turn order for future ages in the case of a military tie to be the person who has constructed the fewest wonders. This removes a lot of the last turn manipulation, and will generally favor the player who has taken the fewest extra turns since any player who knows what they are doing will try to maximize their extra turns.

This will by no means totally fix balance, but it will move the needle in the right direction.

no offense, but "22 Games • 1 Victories • 27% wins" - not too sure how serious we should take that suggestions ... [just didnt want to seriously dissect every point and bad idea...]