Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Archipelago» Forums » General

Subject: Making the "I Win vs. Everyone Looses" make sense for Competitive players rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ryan Cook
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an idea that I use to introduce new folks to the game, it helps them understand the semi-cooperative part of the game a little better. Basically, if the game ends due to rebellion when there is no separatist, you still total up victory points except that the player with the lowest number of victory points is the winner and the player with the most is the looser. The order is just reversed.

This reinforces the need for winning players to pay more to stop rebellions as they have more too loose. Makes sense thematically because the company who invested the most in the rebelling colony lost the most money in its investment.

Hope this helps for players who have problems with the semi-communal aspect of the game.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cardboard-Nose
Germany
Hessen
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Sounds like a reasonable house rule! I like that it doesn't interfere with the rest of the rules.
Thankfully, I haven't yet had one of those players who would prefer a collective loss over finishing second, but if it ever comes to that, I will introduce this rule.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pat Connolly
United States
Zephyrhills
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
While your idea makes thematically, I don't think it addresses the problem that most people are worried about, which is the "I'm behind and can't be the top winner, so I'll tank the game and make everybody lose" player attitude.

If anything, it amplifies that problem, since if I think I'm behind and will be "last among the winners" I will be motivated to tank the game and become "first among the losers". By your idea, this would be the winner.

The way the game is set up - we all win or lose together and maybe my win is better than your win - is a really good catch-up mechanism since the perceived leaders will always be motivated to resolve crises and keep the game alive, even if that means helping those players who seem to be trailing and can't help resolve crises.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Cook
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree. I would only use this rule for the first few games of Archipelago you play because it makes it really obvious that leading players need to contribute more, supporting that catch-up mechanic that makes this game so great. Once you get a little experience you can probably drop it as people will already know that.

Also, the trailing players will need to be very careful, if they try to sink the game for everybody so they win, they might be handing a potential Separatist the win. It adds another facet to the game.

Overall, use it how you want. It works for my group.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Sterling
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
TheGoodGuy wrote:
This is an idea that I use to introduce new folks to the game, it helps them understand the semi-cooperative part of the game a little better. Basically, if the game ends due to rebellion when there is no separatist, you still total up victory points except that the player with the lowest number of victory points is the winner and the player with the most is the looser. The order is just reversed.

This reinforces the need for winning players to pay more to stop rebellions as they have more too loose. Makes sense thematically because the company who invested the most in the rebelling colony lost the most money in its investment.

Hope this helps for players who have problems with the semi-communal aspect of the game.


That would completely change the game mechanics. You could actually start the game with the intention to score low and tank the game on purpose without even being the separatist.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
scottssterling wrote:
TheGoodGuy wrote:
This is an idea that I use to introduce new folks to the game, it helps them understand the semi-cooperative part of the game a little better. Basically, if the game ends due to rebellion when there is no separatist, you still total up victory points except that the player with the lowest number of victory points is the winner and the player with the most is the looser. The order is just reversed.

This reinforces the need for winning players to pay more to stop rebellions as they have more too loose. Makes sense thematically because the company who invested the most in the rebelling colony lost the most money in its investment.

Hope this helps for players who have problems with the semi-communal aspect of the game.


That would completely change the game mechanics. You could actually start the game with the intention to score low and tank the game on purpose without even being the separatist.


Is this game something that a single player can tank contrary to the wishes of all the other players?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:

Is this game something that a single player can tank contrary to the wishes of all the other players?


Often, yes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kelanen wrote:
Shadrach wrote:

Is this game something that a single player can tank contrary to the wishes of all the other players?


Often, yes.
That does wander into design flaw territory. If 3 of 4 people cooperate to keep things good, one shouldn't be able to kill it. Is it a case of everyone letting it get to the point that one person can tank it, or is there no way to stop the sabotage bent individual?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's more a case that everyone needs to rely on everyone else to pull their weight to keep the game afloat.

1 player not pulling their weight might tank it. One player deliberately trying to, by witholding cubes and churches at a critical point usually will tank it...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Watson
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:

Is this game something that a single player can tank contrary to the wishes of all the other players?


If the rest of the players are new to the game it's possible, although unlikely. Most of the ways available to tank the game are also end-game conditions on the victory cards. Cards are hidden, so not only do you not know which actions are likely to trigger the end game, you usually don't know exactly where you stand in terms of victory points. The rebellion is also a potential goal card, so with experienced players you tend to see more careful management of the board to insulate against a separatist victory.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Sterling
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Kelanen wrote:
Shadrach wrote:

Is this game something that a single player can tank contrary to the wishes of all the other players?


Often, yes.
That does wander into design flaw territory. If 3 of 4 people cooperate to keep things good, one shouldn't be able to kill it. Is it a case of everyone letting it get to the point that one person can tank it, or is there no way to stop the sabotage bent individual?


It really depends on how well each side plays, yeah, there are ways to keep rebellion at bay, and there are ways to speed it up. The way the rules are written, there's almost a 50/50 chance one separatist could be in the game, trying to tank it on purpose. If they stay quiet the other players may push their luck a little bit too much with rebellion, opening up the ability to tank the game.

The way the OP wants to change the rules, anyone and everyone could try the strategy of scoring low on purpose and pushing for rebellion, it just becomes a completely different game, and one with more strategic problems. It's impossible to stop rebellion if 3 out of 4 players are pushing for rebellion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.