Board Game Arena

Even though Hardback is not out of beta yet, opening a poll for future Arena setup would be helpful.
However multiple polls cannot be created in a single post.
So I'll create a post for each poll.
This poll is about Literary Award.

Recently I and some fellow players felt Literary Award unbalanced and impairing deckbuilding concept.
Literary Award adds points to the player who played a long word first.
The award cannot switch hands after 12+-letter word submission.
The problem is, the first player has a great advantage (gets 1 more turn) to achieve 12-letter award,
and stalling deckbuilding in early stage to reach 12-letter word actually pays off way more than trying to build a competent deck.
Player with award can start building the deck immediately after getting the award after all.

I guess changing the rules to allow stealing Literary Award with longer words probably won't work.
Cause it would lead the game into the battle for Literary Award (stealing 15pts is effectively gaining 30pts).

Anyway, Literary Award is an optional rule, so I created a poll to collect player opinion.

Edit: The vote is closed since the official implementation release. To request option changes, please open a new poll.

I second this. If literary rewards are on when two top player are playing, I don't think I've ever seen a game come back from losing the 15 point literary award, and because of the starting letters it's usually gone in the first few turns (buy two common letter cards + 7 ink => win!). It makes the rest of the game feel futile and pointless.

I concur with ufm and Quantic Mage. I think the only way for literary awards to *not* be unbalancing would be for them to not be all-or-nothing; maybe in a ladder like ads are so that each award is kept by the player who captures it. Or *some*thing. But in any event: as is, yes, the literary award should not be included in arena, at least not by default.

Having just played with ufm months after this post, I think I'll start turning off the awards, myself. It seems like the best way to advance in the ELO ratings is to not risk games with them!

Personally I quite like literary awards. Happy to play with or without them based on what my opponent prefers.

I think it does add an interesting dynamic to the game if you are playing with top level players of similar ability. I've seen plenty of games where the player who gets the 12 letter LA builds initially builds their deck towards getting the award, and then the other players comes back strong at the end with an all round better deck to win the game.

I do agree that a less strong scoring system for it would probably improve the game. As has been suggested, something similar to adverts.

The problem is not the award player being unbeatable, but giving earlier turn player unfair advantage.
Albeit the chance is slim, award player can be outperformed by getting lucky and grabbing right combination of cards.
However, in that case the earlier player is more likely to get and/or deny other players good cards (mainly trashers or decent point cards).

- Trashing is not preferred or unavailable: grab 2 adequate cards, get award, and cycle. Only 2 cards are required to create a 12-letter word.
If other players spend money on cards, you have more spare time to get award.
Other players thinned the deck? Then don't be hasty and build the deck first. You'll get the award eventually. Sweet free 15 points.
At least 12 cards + 7 inks are needed for a 12-letter. Trashing players are unlikely to meet both prerequisites, mainly the former.
- Trashing is preferred (enough to outrace other players without 15 points, especially in 80pts games): ditch the award and hoard trashers.
Even in rare cases of all players going trashing the earlier player has the leverage.

Changing the award from all-or-nothing to a ladder as fr13day suggested might be an alternative, but cannot say certainly without playtests.