#591006
Thesis: One of the core issues with multiplayer in Star Trek, both 1E and 2E is that it is designed as a "first-past-the-post" victory, instead of a "last man standing".
Definitions:
First past the post: First person to achieve the victory conditions wins, regardless of the state of other players.
Pro: games take close to the amount of time as 1v1. Decks need little or no modifications. Less politics in player interaction.
Con: Very susceptible to snowball effect. Once a player pulls ahead there's less ways to stop or slow them.
Examples: Dominion, Civilization.
Last Man Standing: Players are eliminated 1 by 1, until there's only one player left who wins.
Pro: If a player pulls ahead too far, they risk becoming the target of everyone else. Encourages temporary alliances between players to stop others. Has a different feel then 1v1.
Con: Games can take longer. Politics can be a negative.
Examples: Magic, Lord of the Rings (Decipher)
Suggestions:
For 2E multiplayer:
- Each player starts with 100 points.
- When you solve a mission, that many points are removed from a player of your choice.
- If you would score bonus points, that's added to your own score. (Like gaining health)
- If you would pay points, those are still deducted from your score like usual.
This shifts the game from FPTP to Last Person Standing.
This gives players a way to stop someone who is ahead.
Issues:
- what if you run out of missions to attempt and not all opponents are eliminated?
Summary:
I'm not posting this expecting or even wanting anything to change. If there's interest, I might work on developing the ruleset to try a multiplayer tournament. This was mostly a thought experiment about how 2e could be better.
Definitions:
First past the post: First person to achieve the victory conditions wins, regardless of the state of other players.
Pro: games take close to the amount of time as 1v1. Decks need little or no modifications. Less politics in player interaction.
Con: Very susceptible to snowball effect. Once a player pulls ahead there's less ways to stop or slow them.
Examples: Dominion, Civilization.
Last Man Standing: Players are eliminated 1 by 1, until there's only one player left who wins.
Pro: If a player pulls ahead too far, they risk becoming the target of everyone else. Encourages temporary alliances between players to stop others. Has a different feel then 1v1.
Con: Games can take longer. Politics can be a negative.
Examples: Magic, Lord of the Rings (Decipher)
Suggestions:
For 2E multiplayer:
- Each player starts with 100 points.
- When you solve a mission, that many points are removed from a player of your choice.
- If you would score bonus points, that's added to your own score. (Like gaining health)
- If you would pay points, those are still deducted from your score like usual.
This shifts the game from FPTP to Last Person Standing.
This gives players a way to stop someone who is ahead.
Issues:
- what if you run out of missions to attempt and not all opponents are eliminated?
Summary:
I'm not posting this expecting or even wanting anything to change. If there's interest, I might work on developing the ruleset to try a multiplayer tournament. This was mostly a thought experiment about how 2e could be better.