reikja wrote: ↑18 November 2023, 07:26
Thanks for the feedback on Forest Shuffle and your concern this game might be imbalanced at some point.On behalf of Lookout Games I’d like to state the following:
Forest Shuffle is specifically designed to work with all player counts. While it can be almost cosy and tranquil with more players, it is the most competitive with 2p, that‘s for sure.
Any feel of imbalance is due to players exploring ALL options in this game and developing your strategy on the go: adapting to changes is mandatory.
First of all, i love your game. Congratulations!
But thats because i love it, because i care about it and i think that the number of games i played speaks for itself that i must say that there is a serious problem of balance when the game is played 1-vs-1.
The deer/wolf combo is just to good to be ignored, or even
avoided, and that last part is the real problem.
After studying an awful lot of games, when you look at the replays of the high-ELO players, the pattern is more than obvious.
There is a limit in the number of replays you can do, so right now, i cant push forward anymore in that matter.
I dont know what the policy is here in regard to data and anonymity, i dont want to cause trouble, but over a sample of 1-vs-1 games involving 450ELO+ players (against 200+ ELO players, 1vs1, with the game reaching the winter, no conceded victory, in order to have a clean sample), the success rate of the players having the most D/W is near 80%-85%.
The close to the top you get, the bigger it is.
Winning without them (which occurs 15%-20% of the time) is just as common than beating the higher-classified ELO player (in the sample i got, it happens 20% of the time).
In another words, it is just as easy to beat top-players than winning a random game if you play without D/W.
The game is not balanced enough, as you may try everything else, the odds are still massively against you. In a game where there are 158 cards, its quite a shame that everything got to be decided by only 10% of the deck.
Which is why i find this answer puzzling and disappointing. It solves nothing, like oranjon said.
The game, on the other hand, is a very good fit for a 3 players-battle.
You just need to check the last games of the two russians players ahead of me (Thursday) in Arena Mode.
I checked their last 5 games, each.
Only 1 win by the player (alone) with the most D/W. Much more difficult to get a majority. More interestingly, there are 6 (!) upsets in those 10 games in which the player with the most D/W did not won. This could be the small sample, but the gap is just too big to ignore.
There is a clear difference in how the game is open enough to allow you to find different roads in order to win.
reikja wrote: ↑18 November 2023, 07:26
Like IRL, the habitat at your table thrives or suffers from impacts:
Impact No. 1: In a 2 player game, 30 cards of the whole deck are discarded at the beginning. Are there any deer | wolves in it? If you do the maths - that‘s WHY this rule applies in 2 player battle. You won’t know which 30 cards are off limits.
Sure, you dont know which cards are missing.
But thats actually
increasing the odds of making D/W the only winning combo as these cards are more common than the others ! When in doubt, follow them rather than hoping for a miraculous bat to save you. That only happens in comic books.
There are more wolves (4) than tree ferns (3).
(Even worse, tree ferns can be used only on the bottom of the trees which makes D/W faster and safer to setup because D/W can be placed either left or right.)
There are 12 deers cards if im not mistaken (with 2 of them having 2 deers in each side).
Thats twice the number of common toads (6) and thats more than rabbits (11). Rabbits which will likely need a fly agaric, a mole or (and ?) a silver fir to be successful in this setup, decreasing even further the odds of success.
Only 2 moles, only 3 salamanders, well, you get the idea, you have better odds at taking the deer road. They're just more common in the game.
You will get some, mathematically, its almost a guarantee.
Cutting 30 cards out of the game is more likely to kill any threat to the D/W combo rather than decreasing his power. Because alternative roads needs several low-probability picks to (unlikely !) work make them unworthy of your time.
I understand that this bring a welcome dose of uncertainty, but the D/W cards are still statistically going to be more common, and it makes alternative roads more unlikely to bring points as some parts of it, which are rare enough already, are going to be even more uncommon in the deck.
Losing a mole or a gnat is a disaster for the balance of the game. Its obviously more unlikely that losing a wolf or a deer, but the cost, in terms of gameplay, was, i think, underestimated, in testing.
D/W is the easiest source of points
AND the biggest one, thats the main problem.
(I believe the biggest source of points should not be that easy to get, there should be much more risks involved in that.)
reikja wrote: ↑18 November 2023, 07:26
Impact No. 2: Small birds or amphibia feasting on insects? Good points, small points. Being the most powerful species in the habitat, wolves & deer WILL secure lots of points. This looks like a safe bet.
Impact No. 3: Once your opponent knows how to play you, you won’t get away with this strategy again.
If you are new to the game, BGA algorithm will pair you with novices to the game. If you are focusing on inexperienced players - you‘ll likely win. Like in any other game on BGA.
There is so many blind drafting that this just cant be true.
The game is not about doing the best combos anymore. A lot of cards are simply useless and some are absolutely NEVER played. Whats the point ?
In 1-vs-1, the game is about picking as many fresh cards as possible in order to get as many D/W as possible.
Considering the necessity of planting trees (which leave one card open for the opponent), there is a serious element of pure luck involved.
If you give away 2 deers when planting your first 3 or 4 trees, congrats, you're trailing by 15 points already.
You can improve your odds with mushrooms, but it is mostly the luck that will decide the fate of the game. You get D/W, or you don't. Just as simple as that. Whats the point of that ? Its uninteresting.
reikja wrote: ↑18 November 2023, 07:26
Impact No. 4: Adapt your strategy!
Is there a strategy to outwit your opponent? Yes, there is. Don‘t run with the pack: be sure to leave none for the other player. Plant more trees… and there are more.
Impact No. 5: Winter is coming… yes, this game keeps you on your toes. Again.
So what might be interpreted as balancing issue simply mirrors nature. The game play is just fine - no need to fix anything!
Adapting ? D/W is 10% of the deck (16 cards out of 158), there is no way around it.
It is impossible to strictly prevent your opponent of following that road as a player will pick around 50 cards. The probability that one of the player doesnt get several D/W is just too small, really small by the way, to bank on it.
So where does that leave us ?
The game is not a good fit for a 1-vs-1 play as it stands. Most of the gameplay in that mode is dull, because there is a road much better than the others. How can we claim that the game is balanced if thats the case ? A short look at the results and games of the top players show evidence of that.
There is no combos to look for, no alternate roads that can be used to counter-attack. On the long run, you will be behind, 100% of the time.
The odds are much more balanced with 3 players, as you have to play around 35-40 cards, and there are 2 opponents.
D/W can (and will) be spread over 3 players. There is an element of mutual neutralization, because its still a lot of cards, but you cant count on being sure of having several D/W, its not statistically true anymore in term of probability.
5 players may be pushing your luck (more randomness involved), but then, hedgehogs are finally playable cards.
TLDR :
D/W is statistically overpowered in 2 players game.
A slight change is necessary in order to save it from boredom. Especially if changes are to come for the next season of Arena. Changes that would be destroying whats good about the game, which makes it hard to understand. We really want to have the fate of your game decided that way ?
I understand that wolves are at the top of the food chain (there is a case to be made about the brown bear, but thats not point), but it should be
much more difficult/costly to play them in order to balance the game as it is. On the other hand, deers are way too common. 12 cards, thats too much.
Thats too late now, but i believe that the power of the roe deer card (3 pts per card in that color) should have been given to an insect for instance. With the power of the lynx being transfered to a bird-card, something like an hawk.
That would have improved the balance of the game as well as the geography of the points. And by being above/bottom cards, they need more trees to be setup than D/W which makes them more expensive and riskier.
Otherwise, maybe find a number of endangered species that cannot be taken out of the cards at the opening of the game. In order to get a much better balance between D/W and the rest.
Other idea : Practically, a cap in the number of deer species could be setup for 1-vs-1. For instance, a player can play only 2 out 3 species (roe deer, red deer or fallow deer). Or the wolf should be played only by paying cards, amd maybe adding 2 to get to a total of 5 cards, to make it really costly.
Those are suggestions, and need tuning of course.
But right now i cant buy the game because of that unbalance, honestly, and i dont get why we potentially should move to 1-vs-1 and really dumb ourselves down in that gamemode.
