Board Game Arena

Patchwork is a great game for competitive play.
However some initial random setups offer an "insurmountable" advantage between skilled players (let's say 600+).
This is an issue on Arena: losses to strong but not top10 players could decide who wins the season.

My suggestion would be an open bid in turns for the starting order; e.g. Player1: "zero" ; Player2: "one"; Player1: "three"; Player2: "pass".
The winning bidder (P1 in this case) can chose who starts. At the end of the game, the highest bid (three in this case) is subtracted from the points of the highest bidder.

This was mostly thought as an house rule, but on the MSO discord last year, one of the strongest all-around players agreed with it.
A couple of weeks ago, in a post on another forum, one of the top players on this site also seemed to like the idea.
So i decided to propose it officially.

I understand it is easier said than done, as we would have to get the agreement of the designer and publisher and also have a developer do an implementation.

However I think it would really elevate the game

Yeeeeees!

As the one who agreed on BGG, yes this would be awesome!

I just have no idea how this could be implemented technically but im all positve about the idea

I won the World Series of Board Gaming 2023 Patchwork Division (six in-person single-elim matches), where bidding was used throughout. I'd certainly recommend it as an option.

I like this idea!

Playing one opening twice in tournament play would also be interesting. Where you play both as start player and as second player. Combine the scores. If you lose the first game with 20 points you just have to make it worse for your opponent the second game and beat him 20+ haha. Turn based could even run parallel. Edit: real life can also run parallel with 2 chess clocks lol

I also think elo/arena ratings should be split for turn-based and real speed games. It's much easier to play good moves in turn based games. I wonder who the best players are with standard formats like 1 minute on the clock, 5 mins, 25 mins. Like chess. Bullet, blitz, rapid, etc.

The normal game is just fine by the way. Competition could use some improvements and/or additional rules. The game is so well designed and fun that I actually think the game and players deserve it! The creator did a great job for sure

More edits: I like playing the same position twice the most. Keep your opponents move hidden until you've both finished your turn. Rename it and release it as a new game: "patchwork tourament edition", just for online play. Don't mess with the original too much. It's too good and very easy for new players. Friendlier than chess

Last edit: With my friends over the board we always start after the 0-3 instead of the 2=1. The 0-3 is very good in the middle game, and often broken in the opening. Unwinnable. We have more balanced games with the 0-3 rule in general.

I agree. I have thought the same thing and am glad to see someone has proposed it.

All for the bidding on turn order

It sounds like a great idea!
I only recently got into competitive, but I did notice that certain setups, if not broken, certainly make it much easier to win. This could balance a bit more the higher competitive games.

Alternatively, I also really like RookworstWithoutR's house rule:

RookworstWithoutR wrote: ↑17 November 2023, 01:05 With my friends over the board we always start after the 0-3 instead of the 2=1. The 0-3 is very good in the middle game, and often broken in the opening. Unwinnable. We have more balanced games with the 0-3 rule in general.

This should be very simple to implement, and it would not overwhelm beginners with a choice that may be hard to evaluate at their level. I wonder what Rosenberg thinks about it.

This has to be implemented
Its the only way the 0/3 start isn't gamebreaking for the startplayer..

When the best player of the games says it, you know it needs to be implemented.

What's wrong with the halloween balanced version of Patchwork?

Because trying to balance a non balanced game is weird to me.