OP card removal option?

[GamesOnTheBrain]

The 7 card that removes points is literally the only card that can be used to slow the game down. That opens up slower strategies that simply wouldn't be possible without it. If the card is present in the game, you can counter it by building a slower but stronger engine that doesn't fizzle out. Building for a sprint is different from building for a marathon. Not every game of Space Base is a sprint, and that is a *very* good thing.

[mturton]

The 7 card that removes points is literally the only card that can be used to slow the game down. That opens up slower strategies that simply wouldn't be possible without it. If the card is present in the game, you can counter it by building a slower but stronger engine that doesn't fizzle out. Building for a sprint is different from building for a marathon. Not every game of Space Base is a sprint, and that is a *very* good thing.

This is just wrong. Every game is a sprint, because everyone is trying to reach 40 before others have their engines going. You have to do that in order to win, whether the -4 vp card is present or not.

Moreover the player with that card is still playing the same fast game. It's everyone else who has to play slow.

The -4 vp card, purchased early, is an I-win button that slows the game while punishing the other players. It has no counter and is zero fun. I hope they implement a variant w/o it.

[NinePointOh]

The -4 vp card, purchased early, is an I-win button that slows the game while punishing the other players.

Far from it actually, it's not even that strong of a card for a 3rd level. 7s just aren't rolled often enough to make it optimal; the card loses way more often than it wins in arena.

To give a comparison, 6s are rolled nearly 3 times as often as 7s, and there is a card for that slot that will gain you 2 VPs as a red reward, for an expected outcome of +2.83 VP per round (17/36 * 2 points * 3 players rolling) and a max of 12 VPs in a round in a 4-player game. Whereas the card that's being called "OP" only has an expected outcome of -1.26 VP per round (42% chance of at least one 7 being rolled * -3 points) and a max of -3 VPs in a round, as a red reward in a 4-player game. Even the 2 VP (red reward) card for the 1 slot is more powerful than that.

The negative-VP card is controversial not because it's actually anything close to a dominant strategy, but because the "take that" mechanism is not pleasant for some players. And that's fine. Some might not enjoy having to "Draw 4" in Uno or getting knocked out of the round in Love Letter -- no game is for everyone.

It has no counter

What do you mean? The counter to points getting taken away is points getting added. Literally every card with a rocket is the counter. Personally, my strategy to counter it might be to focus aggressively on green (income), so as to soon be able to make large colony purchases round after round that will far outpace the measly -3 VPs per round.

Another card that needs optional removal is the You Win! card. However difficult it may be to set up, it should simply not exist. If it is so hard that it is not useful, then it is a dead end that players should not be tempted toward, and if it is effective, then it needs removed. It's just bad game design, period.

Also, the cards that permit players to set die rolls need to be optionally removed. In a dice game, dice cheats like that simply negate the effort of building up an engine to win. Another case of bad design.

What makes these things "bad design" rather than just mechanisms you don't enjoy personally? Why would "Set a die" be considered a "cheat" rather than a useful cog in the engine? Luck mitigation is the whole point of the game.

The "You Win" card is both effective and risky (I wouldn't say hard) to set up. There are all kinds of combos that make it very viable, and finding a way to build and execute different kinds of winning engines is the fun of the game, for me at least. Every 3rd-level card in the 12-slot is super powerful but risky to set up. Again, it's all a game of risk/reward and luck mitigation. It doesn't have to appeal to everyone, but I wouldn't ask the creators of chess to remove the knight and the rook and the bishop just because I don't like those mechanisms. At some point, you're just wishing for a completely different game.

[mturton]

The -4 vp card, purchased early, is an I-win button that slows the game while punishing the other players.

Far from it actually, it's not even that strong of a card for a 3rd level. 7s just aren't rolled often enough to make it optimal; the card loses way more often than it wins in arena.

To give a comparison, 6s are rolled nearly 3 times as often as 7s, and there is a card for that slot that will gain you 2 VPs as a red reward, for an expected outcome of +2.83 VP per round (17/36 * 2 points * 3 players rolling) and a max of 12 VPs in a round in a 4-player game. Whereas the card that's being called "OP" only has an expected outcome of -1.26 VP per round (42% chance of at least one 7 being rolled * -3 points) and a max of -3 VPs in a round, as a red reward in a 4-player game. Even the 2 VP (red reward) card for the 1 slot is more powerful than that.

The negative-VP card is controversial not because it's actually anything close to a dominant strategy, but because the "take that" mechanism is not pleasant for some players.

Exactly. It's unpleasant and unfun, and an I-win button. I don't play Arena, but in ordinary games where it is taken early, it almost always wins (your math doesn't add up, I have 287 games, seen it more than enough, thanks). The only time I beat an early purchase of it, weirdly no 7s were rolled that game. I have only seen it beaten when someone buys it late in the game when another player has a lead so great even that card can't beat it.

I don't understand why you object so strongly to a variant that doesn't affect you. You don't have to play without the -4 VP card if you don't want to. But lots of us don't like inflicting that on others (I never buy that card) and don't want it inflicted on ourselves. A BGG poll showed 40% of people who owned the game remove it (that poll was taken down after an acrimonious exchange between posters). That is why a variant to remove it would be nice.

[mturton]

It has no counter

What do you mean? The counter to points getting taken away is points getting added. Literally every card with a rocket is the counter. Personally, my strategy to counter it might be to focus aggressively on green (income), so as to soon be able to make large colony purchases round after round that will far outpace the measly -3 VPs per round.

Why is it not clear to you. Yes, every rocket card is a counter -- but there is no specific counter. An opposing player can't shut that card down somehow, nor can they adopt some strategy to ameliorate it (if you have the ability to focus on income and grab colony cards, you will do that irrespective of the -4 VP card). They can only pile up points which they are doing anyway (nobody ever says "O, the -4 VP card isn't in the game so i will just not take these points") and which is now far more difficult. Nothing changes, hence no counter. What is not clear about that?

[NinePointOh]

Exactly. It's unpleasant and unfun, and an I-win button.

"Pleasant" and "fun" are subjective, and you are entitled to your opinion about the game mechanics you like. But an I-win button it certainly is not.

I don't play Arena, but in ordinary games where it is taken early, it almost always wins (your math doesn't add up, I have 287 games, seen it more than enough, thanks).

How does the math not add up? The math is the math, your anecdotal experience doesn't change it. What you're suggesting is you personally haven't figured out how to beat a particular strategy. What I'm suggesting is that that's not a very good reason to ban the strategy, and it is not only very beatable but usually sub-optimal.

The only time I beat an early purchase of it, weirdly no 7s were rolled that game. I have only seen it beaten when someone buys it late in the game when another player has a lead so great even that card can't beat it.

Okay. Your personal experience is just that -- your personal experience. I've logged over 3000 plays of my own, and my experience differs from yours.

I don't understand why you object so strongly to a variant that doesn't affect you. You don't have to play without the -4 VP card if you don't want to. But lots of us don't like inflicting that on others (I never buy that card) and don't want it inflicted on ourselves. A BGG poll showed 40% of people who owned the game remove it (that poll was taken down after an acrimonious exchange between posters). That is why a variant to remove it would be nice.

I don't object to any variant at all, if the designers want to implement one. It costs me nothing. What I object to is the assertion that it's "bad game design," and your estimation of the card's power. If you simply find "take that" mechanisms unpleasant and want a "nicer" version of the game, great, but that's a completely different conversation than "it's overpowered and automatically makes you win."

[NinePointOh]

Why is it not clear to you. Yes, every rocket card is a counter -- but there is no specific counter.

It's not clear what you would expect in the way of a "specific counter." There is no "specific counter" to anything in this game, other than just racing to 40 faster than your opponents. Yes this card makes that harder, but everything your opponents do to help themselves does, too.

An opposing player can't shut that card down somehow, nor can they adopt some strategy to ameliorate it (if you have the ability to focus on income and grab colony cards, you will do that irrespective of the -4 VP card). They can only pile up points which they are doing anyway (nobody ever says "O, the -4 VP card isn't in the game so i will just not take these points") and which is now far more difficult. Nothing changes, hence no counter. What is not clear about that?

I disagree -- experienced players can and do adjust their strategy to account for it. Of course every strategy is built around generating points somehow, but there are many different types of engines to make that happen, which is what makes the decision-space of the game interesting. You usually "have the ability" to focus on several different options -- it's a matter of which type of engine you choose based on the game state in front of you, how much you are willing to sacrifice -- in terms of passing on purchases for a turn or two, or overpaying for a card you want, etc. -- to do it, and then ultimately how effective you are in implementing it.

Here's a quick hint: the negative-VP card has no effect on you while you have 0 VPs. None. Therefore, while it is in an opponent's possession, a strategy built around incrementally earning yourself a few VPs every round becomes less valuable. Whereas a strategy that keeps you at 0 VPs for a while but sets you up to explode with large colony purchases later in the game becomes more valuable. You are strategically countering the effectiveness of the negative-VP card by limiting the number of rounds in which it can possibly affect you. That is definitely not always the optimal strategy -- some games are more like sprints, and others are more like marathons. It's all about assessing the game state and the options available to you.

[mturton]

Exactly. It's unpleasant and unfun, and an I-win button.

"Pleasant" and "fun" are subjective, and you are entitled to your opinion about the game mechanics you like. But an I-win button it certainly is not.

I don't play Arena, but in ordinary games where it is taken early, it almost always wins (your math doesn't add up, I have 287 games, seen it more than enough, thanks).

How does the math not add up? The math is the math, your anecdotal experience doesn't change it. What you're suggesting is you personally haven't figured out how to beat a particular strategy. What I'm suggesting is that that's not a very good reason to ban the strategy, and it is not only very beatable but usually sub-optimal.

The only time I beat an early purchase of it, weirdly no 7s were rolled that game. I have only seen it beaten when someone buys it late in the game when another player has a lead so great even that card can't beat it.

Okay. Your personal experience is just that -- your personal experience. I've logged over 3000 plays of my own, and my experience differs from yours.

I don't understand why you object so strongly to a variant that doesn't affect you. You don't have to play without the -4 VP card if you don't want to. But lots of us don't like inflicting that on others (I never buy that card) and don't want it inflicted on ourselves. A BGG poll showed 40% of people who owned the game remove it (that poll was taken down after an acrimonious exchange between posters). That is why a variant to remove it would be nice.

I don't object to any variant at all, if the designers want to implement one. It costs me nothing. What I object to is the assertion that it's "bad game design," and your estimation of the card's power. If you simply find "take that" mechanisms unpleasant and want a "nicer" version of the game, great, but that's a completely different conversation than "it's overpowered and automatically makes you win."

Just two quick points. I have never been in a game and seen anyone hang at zero for a while and then explode with colony purchases and win over that card. Paper strategy only, sadly.

Your math doesnt work because stats are clumpy, not smooth. Typically you dont get XX% of rolls being a 7 spread over a hundred rolls, but clumps of 7s in which 4 out of a stretch of 5 rolls are 7s. Having 12-16 points vanish like that is usually the game.

Thanks for the long discussion.

[pjt33]

Your math doesnt work because stats are clumpy, not smooth. Typically you dont get XX% of rolls being a 7 spread over a hundred rolls, but clumps of 7s in which 4 out of a stretch of 5 rolls are 7s. Having 12-16 points vanish like that is usually the game.

I don't understand this point. The ability in question (like all of the ones which grant extra purchases) works by removing a cube, so a clump of four consecutive 7s might only allow it to be used once or twice, depending on who rolls the first one.

[mturton]

Your math doesnt work because stats are clumpy, not smooth. Typically you dont get XX% of rolls being a 7 spread over a hundred rolls, but clumps of 7s in which 4 out of a stretch of 5 rolls are 7s. Having 12-16 points vanish like that is usually the game.

I don't understand this point. The ability in question (like all of the ones which grant extra purchases) works by removing a cube, so a clump of four consecutive 7s might only allow it to be used once or twice, depending on who rolls the first one.

I see I was too specific... just take it as a general comment on the clumpiness of dice outcomes.