Wonder balance & Selecting Wonders

[ZenVee]

Every single wonder is better on side B, so why do we even need to make the decision to pick which side? It makes the game just a clicking exercise, not a test of decision making.

Can we get a small boost to every Wonder A side? For example you get 1 or 2 extra coin when you choose side A. Just a small boost to try and make the game more rich and balanced.

Furthermore, Olympia literally is the worst wonder. The effects are never worth their cost, so you have to pray people realize you have a terrible wonder and throw all their coins at you.

Olympia needs a complete re-work. Just take it out of the game until there can be something that's balanced.

Lastly, Hali B is too good. The Mausoleum wonder is very cheap costing and you can always find a reasonable card, plus the extra couple VP it provides. It gives the player too much flexibility.

change: move the VPs on the wonder so its 0,1,2 intead of the 2,1,0 it is currently so people can't just build it and automatically gain the higher amount first.

If you agree can I get an Amen?

If you disagree give good reasons why.

[6element]

Your assessment of 2nd edition wonders being not very well balance seems correct (with Hali B definitely OP). IMHO classical edition wonders are balanced better, but it is just an opinion. On the other hand some side A wonders of the 2nd edition are a bit stronger / more convenient comparing to side B (i.e. Alex B in the 2nd edition has been nerfed for no good reason, making side A a better choice).

Regarding the suggestion to "tweak" the game - each game on BGA is implemented as close to original rules as possible. The primary reason is that the rules (combined with art and the name of the game) is Intellectual Property not owned by BGA. Introducing tweaks (even optional) according to somebody's opinion isn't something they can do.

[kimbelov]

I love Olympia, any side of it. Also I came to dislike Hali B. When you start with a Hali B, it's like you have a target on you, experienced players tear you up like a puppet, stealing and/or hiding your greens, leaving only browns and grays in the discard pile. Balancing or rebalancing wonders should be done based on stats, not anyone's personal opinion. And even then it should not be done like they nerf or buff characters in multiplayer video games. You don't need to have "weak" wonders buffed with every update. With a game like 7 Wonders the idea, as I see it, to find a way to play around wonders that you find challenging.

[laggercat]

Yep, you are exactly right. See this analysis for some hard data - over 18,000 results:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/269712 ... unbalanced

Good players cannot consistently counter Hali B - they do not "tear you up like a puppet".

As the link shows, in nearly 1000 four player games where the players all had BGA ratings of at least 250 (the average rating is 370), Hali B wins nearly 40% of its games, and Olympia B wins 11% of its games. The same is true of other player counts.

As a recent example, I just beat a guy with a 430 rating (and two others around 250) because the greens came out nicely in the opening hands and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it - its clear from the end of the first Age who is going to win and we go through the motions after that. Hali B is not only so much stronger than the others, its just so boring to play with and against - there is a simple sequence to follow and you mostly don't even need to think.

When Hali B doesn't win, its often because another player effectively sacrificed themselves by taking enough greens - they finish last but prevent Hali B from winning. The other problem for Hali B is the greens being clumped together in a very uncommon way. Provided the greens are relatively evenly spread across the hands, Hali B is very difficult to stop.

Olympia B is awful, and Olympia A not much better - its the only wonder where the A side gets regularly chosen. Neither are quite as bad as Babylon A, but fortunately the Babylon B is quite good.

There is no excuse for the balance to be so off in a second edition - the makers of the game simply messed up.

[oceangamer]

Based on the stats, I think a quick fix is to change the additional VP of some wonders:
Hali B gets no VP in 1st and 2nd wonders (-3)
Olym A, B and Babylon A, Hali A each gets 2 VP in 2nd wonder (+2)

Yep, you are exactly right. See this analysis for some hard data - over 18,000 results:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/269712 ... unbalanced

Good players cannot consistently counter Hali B - they do not "tear you up like a puppet".

As the link shows, in nearly 1000 four player games where the players all had BGA ratings of at least 250 (the average rating is 370), Hali B wins nearly 40% of its games, and Olympia B wins 11% of its games. The same is true of other player counts.

As a recent example, I just beat a guy with a 430 rating (and two others around 250) because the greens came out nicely in the opening hands and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it - its clear from the end of the first Age who is going to win and we go through the motions after that. Hali B is not only so much stronger than the others, its just so boring to play with and against - there is a simple sequence to follow and you mostly don't even need to think.

When Hali B doesn't win, its often because another player effectively sacrificed themselves by taking enough greens - they finish last but prevent Hali B from winning. The other problem for Hali B is the greens being clumped together in a very uncommon way. Provided the greens are relatively evenly spread across the hands, Hali B is very difficult to stop.

Olympia B is awful, and Olympia A not much better - its the only wonder where the A side gets regularly chosen. Neither are quite as bad as Babylon A, but fortunately the Babylon B is quite good.

There is no excuse for the balance to be so off in a second edition - the makers of the game simply messed up.

[laggercat]

When Hali B doesn't win, its often because another player effectively sacrificed themselves by taking enough greens - they finish last but prevent Hali B from winning. The other problem for Hali B is the greens being clumped together in a very uncommon way. Provided the greens are relatively evenly spread across the hands, Hali B is very difficult to stop.

Here is a game where the greens were horribly clumped and Hali B finished last:
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=300635319

Even for this game, I made an error in taking the Caravansary rather than the Glass in Age 2.

[chris5]

Some A side wonders are fine.
Alexandria B side for example can be pretty rough.
babylon B and ephesos B both require brick for their first tier. Brick is the worst resource in the first age (clay, wood and ore all are required for age 1 military buildings, brick only gets you the baths). Building 1 brick isnt also terribly useful since in age 2 both aquaduct and walls require 3 bricks. So if you build brick getting the 2 brick resource building often is better. I like ephesos A if im next to an olympia.
Overall B sides are more rewarding to built, but can cost you more effort (depending on who are next to you) to build. I think the statistics on A/B is also a bit distorted by experienced players picking B more often even in cases where A would be better.

Olympia isnt the best, but the A side is pretty cheap so you can get it out without going out of your way to build specific resources

Yes, hali B is the best wonder. What I would like to add is that even if players deny you green, you can still go for red. Sell a red card at some point and you can build your wonder in the final round. Then, if someone tries to overtake you, you can pick up the red from the discard pile, if not, you can take something else. Can save you from a lot of overbuilding reds.

[Ellye]

Halli B in the 2nd edition is so disproportionately more powerful than any other wonder that it makes me prefer the 1st edition of the game, unfortunately.

Personally, I'd rather enjoy if BGA had a "A-Side Only" mode, as the A-Side of the wonders seem to be a bit better balanced between each other.

[ElThoesen]

Hali B is not only so much stronger than the others, its just so boring to play with and against - there is a simple sequence to follow and you mostly don't even need to think.

I had a Hali B game where my science strategy got completely botched in a split with two other players and it was hard to recover to reds because of card order.

I still got 2nd out of 5 lol. It is absolutely busted as a wonder, but I'd disagree that it's boring; I quite like seeing it pop up in my hands.

[Laplace_314159]

I agree that in many/most cases if Hali is in and esp if they have access to at least one other differing commodity via trading initially the only way Hali doesn't win is someone(s) steals enough science cards so they don't win. But because they themselves won't have enough science cards either to dominate and essentially gimp themselves from taking other higher point cards they basically take themselves out of the running for first.

And psychologically, most people are playing to win and "not to be in last place" so they will hope that SOMEONE ELSE falls on their sword to prevent Hali from winning. But everyone else is thinking the same thing so no one does it thus giving Hali the victory. And this makes things just unfun.

A simple fix which IMO would mitigate a lot of the Hali imbalance is to simply change Hali's built in commodity to...not a commodity (and maybe not even Brick. Maybe Ore). This would mean the only way Hali gets all sciences in Age I on is to get extremely lucky with the timing and/or getting trade money. They can probably eventually get a full 1-1.5 sets in Age II if they work for it, but it won't be as much of a shoe in as before.