Choosing Between Two Wonders in Three Player

[Patrick of the Isles]

I didn't notice any discussion of this idea in the recent threads, but I definitely could have missed it. I wonder how interested other folks would be in asking BGA to implement an option where in a three player game, each player is dealt two wonders, and may select their preferred choice between the two. This sort of choosing is only possible in 3 player, but might help address the fact that large portions of the community are disappointed when they end up with Olympia, and more importantly, allow for additional feelings of choice.

[laggercat]

I didn't notice any discussion of this idea in the recent threads, but I definitely could have missed it.

I wonder how interested other folks would be in asking BGA to implement an option where in a three player game, each player is dealt two wonders, and may select their preferred choice between the two. This sort of choosing is only possible in 3 player, but might help address the fact that large portions of the community are disappointed when they end up with Olympia, and more importantly, allow for additional feelings of choice.

Won't this mean that Hali B gets played almost every game? That would be no fun for anyone.

[RicardoRix]

Olympia just finished with 59 points, only 1 point behind HaliB in the MSO final.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=346840817

There will always be a considered best and a worst. You just have to get used to it. Or learn how to play as well as this player. Some MSO players were playing HaliA - maybe to suggest that it's not just luck that wins you games.

To answer the OP directly. No unofficial ruling will ever be implemented. You'd need game designer/publisher approval at the very least.

[Patrick of the Isles]

No unofficial ruling will ever be implemented. You'd need game designer/publisher approval at the very least.

Of course if a publisher objected to a variant, BGA would likely not implement it. But many popular games on BGA have do have variant options implemented that are unofficial in the sense of not being in any published rulebook. Before going down the route of starting a formal implementation request, a discussion of whether folks would find it enjoyable seems like a good first step.

[RicardoRix]

...If you notice the above comment and the original post was edited on the 26th February AFTER the first full page of replies and comments.
This very much makes my following statements look stupid and out of place, so I have deleted them.
Not a very nice thing to do, there is no apology for this behaviour. I will avoid any conversation with this person in the future....

[Patrick of the Isles]

Can you name any unofficial BGA variants?

The significant majority of games I play on BGA have setting options not listed in the published rulebook, yes. They are almost exclusively options that the expert player community feels make the games more competitively balanced. A few I can think of off the top of my head:

- Terra Mystica (multiple bidding options)
- Great Western Trail (bidding, removal of cards and workers at lower player counts)
- Dice Forge (optional removal of certain die face)
- Agricola (optional removal of strong cards)
- Wingspan (optional removal of strong cards)

[laggercat]

Olympia just finished with 59 points, only 1 point behind HaliB in the MSO final.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=346840817

There will always be a considered best and a worst. You just have to get used to it. Or learn how to play as well as this player. Some MSO players were playing HaliA - maybe to suggest that it's not just luck that wins you games.

And here is a game where a player with ELO of 507 finished last playing with Hali B while Olympia B (ELO 360) won the game.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=191544403

These examples prove nothing other than sometimes strange stuff happens.

Hali B wins 39% of 4 player games while Olympia B wins 11%. Your chance of winning is nearly FOUR times higher if you have Hali B rather than Olympia B. This is not one wonder "considered" best and worst but analysis of 18,000 results. I have 9 games on file where Hali B finished last and Olympia first in a four player game. There are 54 cases the other way around. No game should be that unbalanced. Sure, the wonders don't need to be exactly equal, but they should not be this different. It is just bad game design.

Anyway, if I ever get a choice of two wonders, I'm picking Hali B every time if I can. The most annoying bit is that it is so boring to play with - just follow these instructions: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/303144 ... b-strategy

[Jellby]

Can you name any unofficial BGA variants?

Hanabi has literally an "Unofficial variant". It has probably been approved by the publisher or designer, because that's generally the BGA rule, but it's still called unofficial

[RicardoRix]

.

[RicardoRix]

Yes, anecdotal evidence can mean very little. I'm poking the bear. There is also the small argument to say that players in the large sample aren't accomplished enough players to play with all the different wonders in the strongest possible way. Some wonders take a good more degree of skill to get the best out of. Should that mean that the easiest to play wonders should get nerfed? Debateable. Probably not.

Even after theoretical altercations, there will always be bias one way or the other. How significant this is to the player might mean that you stop playing the game due to the irritation. It's a personal choice. But you need to know that imbalances will always exist. It's probably best to learn to live with them and enjoy the experience than berate them at all opportunities. Maybe the MSO players playing Hali A are setting the best example. And you don't have to play HaliB (or any other wonders) according to a strict guide just to win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVCst6vyV80