The BGA house rules for 2p are awful

[yuniboshi]

On bga, it ignores the 2 player mode the game designers intended it to be and has a shared board for players to develop, which is really bad because when the board state is one away from being solvable you are incentivized to stall and NOT ask to reveal information that will progress the game state (since that can lead to you giving your opponent the free win). So 2p often turns into either a staring contest, or a game where you have to disrespect your opponent and pray that they don't see the win (which is never fun in a board game).

I really hope there is an option to turn off the BGA 2p house rules and be able to play the actual game designed for 2p like a battleships game. Or at least the recommended players count should definitely not be 2p right now because it's the most awful way to play with this house rule of sharing the same playfield where revealing information loses.

[Lawton]

Noticed the exact same problem in my first game.. a battleship style where the players are racing would be far better

[Shobu]

i made a similar report few days ago, please comment on it.
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=165319
The issue is not that bad when playing without expansions though.

[yuniboshi]

I downloaded the rulebook (like I try do with new beta games), read it on my commute on my way home and I was really excited to play it. It had a solo mode so I played in solo to get used to the controls. And when I jump into my first game I was like, wow, I love puzzle games and this is a puzzle game that doesn't bore me. Then I get into my second game and I was feeling the eerieness, something was wrong; Third game and the elephant in the room is casting its shadow so big I can no longer ignore it; Fourth game and I'm like, why?? Why do I have to pray for my opponent to make a mistake and not guess the right answer that was there?? There's no hidden information in this version of the game (unlike the version I read since that was a battleships game) and the pieces were put in randomly (so it wasn't even really a puzzle game, you are just guessing a completely random arrangement that is not designed to be challenging). I'm not sure what the motive is for cutting corners but the impact really comes through on the end product.

I feel so sorry for the game designers that their game has been rampaged over. But hey, that adds contrast to help us appreciate Reflection.

[Fearinn]

On bga, it ignores the 2 player mode the game designers intended it to be and has a shared board for players to develop, which is really bad because when the board state is one away from being solvable you are incentivized to stall and NOT ask to reveal information that will progress the game state (since that can lead to you giving your opponent the free win). So 2p often turns into either a staring contest, or a game where you have to disrespect your opponent and pray that they don't see the win (which is never fun in a board game).

I really hope there is an option to turn off the BGA 2p house rules and be able to play the actual game designed for 2p like a battleships game. Or at least the recommended players count should definitely not be 2p right now because it's the most awful way to play with this house rule of sharing the same playfield where revealing information loses.

Please notice no game goes to beta on BGA without its publisher's approval. Orapa Mine, specifically, has been closely followed and tested by Playte, and the decision to exclude the 2p-rules comes from them. I can't say for sure, but maybe your vision of what "the designers intended it to be" is not totally accurate.

Moreover, remember each player may submit two answers, which are private info. You don't necessarily have to reveal the final info to your opponent
to solve the puzzle.

[yuniboshi]

No, you don't. So the theoretical optimum is that you do not ever make any move that will result in a board state that will ever have a 100% solution - a 50/50 at best. Then you crunch the two possibilities and hope you guess before your opponent on the 50/50. That's an awful board game to play.

[yuniboshi]

I've been thinking more about this, and I think the problem is not that the rules are bad, but that it being on BGA in a competitive mode has made the game much less interesting. This isn't really a competitive game where you want to get the answer right before your opponent; This is the kind of game I would bring out as filler during a break between two long games or a game where we play 2v1 and rotate the quiz master so we can have the implicit enjoyment of seeing who can set up the harder puzzle. When it is brought onto BGA with a who guesses it right first format, it really loses its flavor because now we're trying to race and beat the other person and that's no longer fun. So I propose making it coop or something, but this game definitely is not as fun without a human setting up the puzzle (guessing random placements are not fun or challenging)

[parsonii]

Yeah, I prefer playing games with 2-players because it tends to go faster with different time zones and all.

I noticed the same problem mentioned by others by the third game when my opponent started asking questions that we both know the answers to. Then it dawn on me that the final piece could only be in one of 2 or 3 locations and they stopped asking revealing questions. Naturally, I started adopting the same strategy in subsequent games. Either that or eliminate down to 3 options and with 2 guesses, 67% chance of getting the right answer.

From my understanding of the original rules, in a 2p game, each player will set up a different map for their opponent to guess. I don't necessary need to set up the map to be tricky, but two people competing to solve a separate puzzle first would be nice... but that would be like solo games and just comparing # of turns each person took...

Regardless, Fearinn, the developer, had already opined on Shobu's report that they likely will not have the time to revamp 2p mode. Still appreciate the introduction to this game. I have purchased the physical copy.

[Fearinn]

FYI, I've shared your feedback with the publisher and it confirmed the implementation rules must stay the same.

[Wangechi]

i wish they changed to rules so that you can guess after asking, i think it would make it more fair and challenging. Any chance the publisher could be open to that at least? And for both 2p and more p!