[BCSWowbagger]

The best thing would be to address the root cause of "first player advantage", which Smiley named a few pages ago:

We need more turns with fewer actions per turn.

In a game with twice as many turns, the first-turn advantage is halved. In a game with half as many actions per turn, the first-turn advantage is halved again.

EDIT: Let me put meat on those bones. These numbers are entirely mine, not vetted by anyone, but at least they're actual numbers that can be measured.

We should aim for an environment where the average game lasts 10 turns and the average play phase lasts 60 minutes.

That means the average turn should last 3 minutes (per player).

I'd kill to have good worldwide data on what the average turn length currently is.

[Discovery rox]

Reduce game time by 5 minutes. If time is called, the 2nd player has one turn of less than 5 minutes to score points. If after that, both players have met the "win conditions", it's a draw.

that doesnt fix the problem. first player still gets the first turn advantage. your just reducing that advantage a bit by saying that instead of getting one less turn then first player, second player gets one less turn plus a smushed, rushed last turn. still not even.

We should aim for an environment where the average game lasts 10 turns and the average play phase lasts 60 minutes.

so first turn advantage is 10% more moves then second player. that still seems very high to me.

Bottom line: there are games where it's a race and whoever goes first wins.

and thats a poorly designed game. might as well play candyland.

But there's also games - and certain decks - where going second can be leveraged to advantage.

if you truly think some decks are better served by going second, even given traditional first mover advantage as i outlined earlier, then that doesnt mean there isnt a problem. it just changes the nature of the problem and changes what the fix should be. in this case, the fix should be that both players secretly bid points to be the player order of there choice.

if both players bid on different order, then no points are paid. everyone goes in the order they want and they each play for 100 points.

if both players want to be first or both players want to be second, then the player who bid more points gets the order of there choice and the other player gets the points bid by there opponent as compensation.

example: you want to go first and i want to go first. i secretly bid 10 points, you secretly bid 15. you win the bid, so you go first, but then i start the game with 15 points.

It's not something I'm inclined to redesign the game over.

the game is constantly adjusted and "redesigned" every time new rules or new cards are added. thats one of the defining attributes of this sytle of game.

[JeBuS]

Reduce game time by 5 minutes. If time is called, the 2nd player has one turn of less than 5 minutes to score points. If after that, both players have met the "win conditions", it's a draw.

that doesnt fix the problem. first player still gets the first turn advantage. your just reducing that advantage a bit by saying that instead of getting one less turn then first player, second player gets one less turn plus a smushed, rushed last turn. still not even.

I meant for my suggestion to be in addition to the idea of the 2nd player getting the last turn if the first player meets the victory conditions on his turn.

[AllenGould]

Or you go to where you win if you start your turn with >100 points and more than any opponent?

in which case the game could possibly go on for many turns past the first 100 point breaking turn as everyone tries to one up the other.

As you say, there is that risk - on the other hand, there is a finite limit of points that a player can get in a game - especially in big chunks. You can only solve so many missions, after all.

I suppose you could get to a point where both players are Dabo-ing and just staying a point ahead?

[AllenGould]

In a game with twice as many turns, the first-turn advantage is halved. In a game with half as many actions per turn, the first-turn advantage is halved again.

I don't think it'd work that way. To generalize - if the first player's deck wins in n turns, the second player needs to win in n-1 turns to win. It doesn't matter if n = 4, 10, or 30. The second player will always need to win a turn faster to win. (Or put another way: the first player only needs to be *as fast* as the second, not faster.)

[Discovery rox]

In a game with twice as many turns, the first-turn advantage is halved. In a game with half as many actions per turn, the first-turn advantage is halved again.

I don't think it'd work that way. To generalize - if the first player's deck wins in n turns, the second player needs to win in n-1 turns to win. It doesn't matter if n = 4, 10, or 30. The second player will always need to win a turn faster to win. (Or put another way: the first player only needs to be *as fast* as the second, not faster.)

your both right. your right that first player will always have an advantage. hes right that the magnitude of that advantage shrinks the longer the game goes on. every time you double the game length, you halve the advantage, but that advantage never becomes zero.

its kind of like zenos paradox.

[sexecutioner]

Can't remember the exact situations off the top of my head, but there were instances where I found it advantageous to go second. Even as far as hoping I'd get the second turn on the coin flip.

Likely it was interactive decks, as it meant the opponent had more Personnel out in play for me to murder

[AllenGould]

In a game with twice as many turns, the first-turn advantage is halved. In a game with half as many actions per turn, the first-turn advantage is halved again.

I don't think it'd work that way. To generalize - if the first player's deck wins in n turns, the second player needs to win in n-1 turns to win. It doesn't matter if n = 4, 10, or 30. The second player will always need to win a turn faster to win. (Or put another way: the first player only needs to be *as fast* as the second, not faster.)

your both right. your right that first player will always have an advantage. hes right that the magnitude of that advantage shrinks the longer the game goes on. every time you double the game length, you halve the advantage, but that advantage never becomes zero.

But I don't see how the advantage shrinks - it's always a one turn advantage. Player 2 just got a few more turns before they were short one.

[Takket]

maybe you could change victory conditions to whoever is leading after an equal number of turns, with a minimum of 100 points (yeah you have to work out how that works with the 40 pt space/planet mission rule and YAAM rules).

if you do that player one's turn can't end when they reach 100. they have to be able to continue their turn as long as they want. otherwise something like this could happen:

Score is 95-70, player 2 leading. player 1 has a particle fountain in hand. player 2 has a drought tree in hand. player one completes a mission for 30 points, bringing their score to 100. normally the game ends right here. but if player 2 gets another turn, player 1 has to be allowed to play their particle fountain to get to 105, otherwise player 2 can just start their turn by palying drought tree to get to 102, and the game is over.

[Ensign Q]

changing victory conditions doesnt seem a good idea.
just allow the 2nd player to turn the game into a draw seems fair enough.
its also a simple solution without 100 hundred more pages of rules.

can also go for 2nd player is immune to dead end

[AllenGould]

changing victory conditions doesnt seem a good idea.
just allow the 2nd player to turn the game into a draw seems fair enough.
its also a simple solution without 100 hundred more pages of rules.

can also go for 2nd player is immune to dead end

I think it'd be as simple to say that you only check victory conditions at the end of the 2nd players turn. (Compare scores, if someone is over 100 high score wins?)

[Discovery rox]

I think it'd be as simple to say that you only check victory conditions at the end of the 2nd players turn. (Compare scores, if someone is over 100 high score wins?)

thats nice and simple. only problem is what happens when time runs out during first players turn?

[AllenGould]

I think it'd be as simple to say that you only check victory conditions at the end of the 2nd players turn. (Compare scores, if someone is over 100 high score wins?)

thats nice and simple. only problem is what happens when time runs out during first players turn?

You finish through to the second player's turn.

[Smiley]

This sounds good!

[Boffo97]

This tangent was split off from the 1EFQ - How can we help you recruit new players? thread. Please let me know if any posts here should have stayed there or vice versa.