LV3 Blind card draws should be prohibited

[relaxed-llama112]

Every time an opponent blind draws a Level 3 card, I immediately find the game tedious and uninteresting. The reason is that the opponent is gambling on obtaining a card that grants a massive advantage, and since I have no idea what that card is, I can't prepare defenses. But this approach relies too heavily on luck—if the gamble pays off, victory comes easily; if a bad card is drawn, defeat is highly likely.

Splendor truly should be a game that reduces luck and emphasizes skill.

The simplest improvement I suggest is to ban blind draws for Level 3 cards, or impose a higher cost (such as forfeiting a gold gem, or requiring more cost to purchase the blind-drawn card) to reduce the game's luck factor.

[FrankJones]

Every time an opponent blind draws a Level 3 card, I immediately find the game tedious and uninteresting. The reason is that the opponent is gambling on obtaining a card that grants a massive advantage, and since I have no idea what that card is, I can't prepare defenses. But this approach relies too heavily on luck—if the gamble pays off, victory comes easily; if a bad card is drawn, defeat is highly likely.

Splendor truly should be a game that reduces luck and emphasizes skill.

The simplest improvement I suggest is to ban blind draws for Level 3 cards, or impose a higher cost (such as forfeiting a gold gem, or requiring more cost to purchase the blind-drawn card) to reduce the game's luck factor.

How does this supposed luck issue differ from the frustration of buying a card only to have a tremendous card for the opponent pop up in the vacant spot?

I mean, I'm mediocre at this game - 304 Elo, I think, and I see you have a strong Elo, so maybe I'm missing something here, but to me it seems an opponent can, by pure random luck, get an 8-point card (5 points plus a royal) anytime I buy a card from row 3. And how exactly would I counter that just because I know what the card is?

[tonyzetigre]

Because often time, you can math it out a bit. 7 cost cards and 7-3 cards can often be defended or slowed down if you know the card.

[Ceaseless]

Every time an opponent blind draws a Level 3 card, I immediately find the game tedious and uninteresting. The reason is that the opponent is gambling on obtaining a card that grants a massive advantage, and since I have no idea what that card is, I can't prepare defenses. But this approach relies too heavily on luck—if the gamble pays off, victory comes easily; if a bad card is drawn, defeat is highly likely.

Splendor truly should be a game that reduces luck and emphasizes skill.

The simplest improvement I suggest is to ban blind draws for Level 3 cards, or impose a higher cost (such as forfeiting a gold gem, or requiring more cost to purchase the blind-drawn card) to reduce the game's luck factor.

There's already a large drawback that tends to make the move fairly underwhelming. Your opponent has no idea what they're going to get. A lot of the cards they can pull are underwhelming or poorly aligned with what they have. Even the degree of secrecy is somewhat limited, since if they start racking up a bunch of a color that lacks a visible plan you have a rather educated guess on what they got. Even if they pull a solid card, it is far from an "easy victory". Victory is not even guaranteed.

Splendor is a game where cards are being flipped off of the top each time a card is used. There's plenty of variation, and part of the skill in this game is handling it, knowing that a bad move can sometimes succeed, but is still not a great play since more often than not it fails.

Every time an opponent blind draws a Level 3 card, I immediately find the game tedious and uninteresting.

A single blind draw making the entire time boring? That seems over the top. Making posts like "boring game zzzzzzzzzzz" after getting obliterated by a 200 indicates you're getting way too invested when the cards do something that doesn't go your way. If you're looking for more interesting games, you shouldn't be playing 100-200s in rated games as a 600 with any degree of regularity in the first place. Splendor has a ton of 300+ players that you can face. Frankly a 500+ filter is probably more reasonable, but that can slow down pairing enough to justify not doing that.

[relaxed-llama112]

Every time an opponent blind draws a Level 3 card, I immediately find the game tedious and uninteresting. The reason is that the opponent is gambling on obtaining a card that grants a massive advantage, and since I have no idea what that card is, I can't prepare defenses. But this approach relies too heavily on luck—if the gamble pays off, victory comes easily; if a bad card is drawn, defeat is highly likely.

Splendor truly should be a game that reduces luck and emphasizes skill.

The simplest improvement I suggest is to ban blind draws for Level 3 cards, or impose a higher cost (such as forfeiting a gold gem, or requiring more cost to purchase the blind-drawn card) to reduce the game's luck factor.

There's already a large drawback that tends to make the move fairly underwhelming. Your opponent has no idea what they're going to get. A lot of the cards they can pull are underwhelming or poorly aligned with what they have. Even the degree of secrecy is somewhat limited, since if they start racking up a bunch of a color that lacks a visible plan you have a rather educated guess on what they got. Even if they pull a solid card, it is far from an "easy victory". Victory is not even guaranteed.

Splendor is a game where cards are being flipped off of the top each time a card is used. There's plenty of variation, and part of the skill in this game is handling it, knowing that a bad move can sometimes succeed, but is still not a great play since more often than not it fails.

Every time an opponent blind draws a Level 3 card, I immediately find the game tedious and uninteresting.

A single blind draw making the entire time boring? That seems over the top. Making posts like "boring game zzzzzzzzzzz" after getting obliterated by a 200 indicates you're getting way too invested when the cards do something that doesn't go your way. If you're looking for more interesting games, you shouldn't be playing 100-200s in rated games as a 600 with any degree of regularity in the first place. Splendor has a ton of 300+ players that you can face. Frankly a 500+ filter is probably more reasonable, but that can slow down pairing enough to justify not doing that.

I've noticed you really enjoy arguing with me. Honestly, I've just been expressing my own opinion. Saying it's too exaggerated—am I not allowed to share my own feelings? Just like that previous post where you quoted each point to refute me—I can't be bothered to explain my thoughts any further. I've never treated Splendor like some kind of “competition.” I just enjoy playing it to unwind when I'm bored. Who I play with is my own business—I don't need your advice. As long as someone's willing to play with me, I couldn't care less whether they're a pro or a newbie.

Plus, I've seen top-ranked players in competitive tournaments try to secretly hold Level 3 cards—nothing unusual about that. You think I haven't considered the flaws you mentioned?

This is my final reply to you. No need to respond. Goodbye.

[FrankJones]

Writing a post entitled "bind card draws should be eliminated" seems to be inviting disagreement.

In your last post, you wrote, "I've never treated Splendor like some kind of “competition.” I just enjoy playing it to unwind when I'm bored."

This statement seems almost entirely contradictory to the statements you made in your first post in this thread.

[Ceaseless]

I've noticed you really enjoy arguing with me. Honestly, I've just been expressing my own opinion. Saying it's too exaggerated—am I not allowed to share my own feelings? Just like that previous post where you quoted each point to refute me—I can't be bothered to explain my thoughts any further. I've never treated Splendor like some kind of “competition.” I just enjoy playing it to unwind when I'm bored. Who I play with is my own business—I don't need your advice. As long as someone's willing to play with me, I couldn't care less whether they're a pro or a newbie.

Plus, I've seen top-ranked players in competitive tournaments try to secretly hold Level 3 cards—nothing unusual about that. You think I haven't considered the flaws you mentioned?

This is my final reply to you. No need to respond. Goodbye.

You're upset that I'm using the quote feature. You're upset that I dare disagree with you on a public forum. This is getting silly. I'm not stopping you from sharing your opinions at all. You claim to "just enjoy playing (Splendor) to unwind when I'm bored" yet are preying on far lower rated players and then on multiple occasions have insulted them/vented after they won, so I'm not buying it. Also a lot of venting for something you claim is "just to unwind".

Hard to speak for the alleged games you claim to have seen, those are the sort of thing that involves the actual details of the game to determine the quality of the move. There's a time and place for some ideas, though that's a far cry from them needing to be banned.

[doctorchris]

I'm a bit late to this and notice the discussion got a bit unpleasant, so can I try a reset with a suggestion that I've been thinking about for a while?

What would the game be like if all the stack cards were visible rather than hidden? Laid out in a line on each level with the closest to the table the next to come into play. It makes the game into a perfect information, zero randomness game like chess. So it should minimize the influence of luck (as the original poster wants) and maximize the opportunity for skill to prevail.

Has anyone played the game like this? As a physical board game I mean, as there is no option for it on BGA. Are there any drawbacks?

[FrankJones]

I find this idea intriguing.

[Ceaseless]

I'm a bit late to this and notice the discussion got a bit unpleasant, so can I try a reset with a suggestion that I've been thinking about for a while?

What would the game be like if all the stack cards were visible rather than hidden? Laid out in a line on each level with the closest to the table the next to come into play. It makes the game into a perfect information, zero randomness game like chess. So it should minimize the influence of luck (as the original poster wants) and maximize the opportunity for skill to prevail.

Has anyone played the game like this? As a physical board game I mean, as there is no option for it on BGA. Are there any drawbacks?

That's the equivalent of increasing the row size by 1 and not allowing top of the deck draws.
But no, it wouldn't be perfect information, zero luck, you don't know what the new card to be revealed will be, you wouldn't want to flip a nuke to your opponent to use on their next turn, for instance.
There's something else reserving a blind card does besides letting players hide the card they grabbed in exchange for not knowing what they're about to get. It allows you to reserve without flipping a new card for your opponent to potentially use, allowing you to avoid luck of the draw for them when you're just aiming for a gold, which can be especially key when your opponent is 1 card away from a noble and even a level 1 of that color is still 3 points.