Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Argent: The Consortium» Forums » Variants

Subject: Doublevoters for 5-6 player games rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have not experienced this problem at high player counts, but let me know how this variant works out!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J M
United States
Scottdale
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I won my last game with six votes, four of which I won on IP tie-breaker, and obviously the 5th being most IP. This variant sounds like a really interesting way to score.

On a side note, every game I've played so far has been won by the player with the most IP, but that's barely into double digits of plays (4 and 5 player).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Scothern
United Kingdom
Glasgow
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The last time I played, two players got into an influence war, while I gave up on it. They spent most of their actions fighting over the available IP, while I concentrated on all the other things. The person that won the influence war did beat the other player, but I won the game.

Its not the first time that something similar has happened.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Eric Reuss
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
scotherns wrote:
The last time I played, two players got into an influence war, while I gave up on it. They spent most of their actions fighting over the available IP, while I concentrated on all the other things. The person that won the influence war did beat the other player, but I won the game.

Its not the first time that something similar has happened.

This. In theory, Influence should be self-balancing: if it's generally the deciding factor in a playgroup's games, that means the playgroup isn't valuing it high enough, and should be foregoing other benefits to pursue Influence. (Even if there's few errand spaces which grant it, you can always gain 1 per mage placed, as well as prioritizing Influence-granting items, Supporters, etc.)

At some point you'll hit a breakeven where the winner of Most Influence spends effort proportional to its importance. There's admittedly an uneven step down to 2nd place - if the 2nd-Influence voter isn't in play, more often than not the runner-up will have spent more effort on Influence than what they get out of it (though 2nd in tiebreaks isn't nothing) - but that's true of any hotly contested voter.

The bigger catch is that players who are behind in Influence and really aren't going to get much out of contesting ought to stop wasting effort on it once they've reached a reasonable level for Merit Badge use. I've seen people battle fiercely over who got 3rd place vs. 4th place Influence, and while the tiebreak was relevant, the effort probably would have been better spent elsewhere.

~ ~ ~

All that being said, this variant sounds really interesting for larger games - it smooths out the 1st-to-2nd cliff and makes it so 33%-40% of the players benefit from each voter (like 2-3p).

(And I still haven't managed a play with Instant Runoff...)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
darker wrote:
scotherns wrote:
The last time I played, two players got into an influence war, while I gave up on it. They spent most of their actions fighting over the available IP, while I concentrated on all the other things. The person that won the influence war did beat the other player, but I won the game.

Its not the first time that something similar has happened.

This. In theory, Influence should be self-balancing: if it's generally the deciding factor in a playgroup's games, that means the playgroup isn't valuing it high enough, and should be foregoing other benefits to pursue Influence. (Even if there's few errand spaces which grant it, you can always gain 1 per mage placed, as well as prioritizing Influence-granting items, Supporters, etc.)

At some point you'll hit a breakeven where the winner of Most Influence spends effort proportional to its importance. There's admittedly an uneven step down to 2nd place - if the 2nd-Influence voter isn't in play, more often than not the runner-up will have spent more effort on Influence than what they get out of it (though 2nd in tiebreaks isn't nothing) - but that's true of any hotly contested voter.

The bigger catch is that players who are behind in Influence and really aren't going to get much out of contesting ought to stop wasting effort on it once they've reached a reasonable level for Merit Badge use. I've seen people battle fiercely over who got 3rd place vs. 4th place Influence, and while the tiebreak was relevant, the effort probably would have been better spent elsewhere.

~ ~ ~

All that being said, this variant sounds really interesting for larger games - it smooths out the 1st-to-2nd cliff and makes it so 33%-40% of the players benefit from each voter (like 2-3p).

(And I still haven't managed a play with Instant Runoff...)


I agree with this analysis. Tiebreaks and merit badges are both nice, but if you're significantly behind in IP you'd be better off sniping voters while letting 1st and 2nd (and potentially 3rd) battle over the IP war in larger player counts, especially since it's possible to win with only a small number of voters in these games.

3 
 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.