tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post2418986005219876834..comments2024-03-28T05:12:10.477-07:00Comments on Gone Gaming: Tie BreakersColdfoothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11636345146138362966noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-22732407545502291932008-04-03T20:48:00.000-07:002008-04-03T20:48:00.000-07:00No good method for breaking ties in Blokus?!Playin...No good method for breaking ties in <B>Blokus</B>?!<BR/><BR/>Playing earlier in the turn order is a pretty strong advantage--there's more space available on each of your turns.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, last player in the turn order should win ties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-45880995760584273052007-10-15T01:17:00.000-07:002007-10-15T01:17:00.000-07:00william,I can see your argument based on high-poin...william,<BR/><BR/>I can see your argument based on high-point games that came really close. Still, I personally prefer to see who was that fraction ahead, even if it's really lost in the "noise" of the score.<BR/><BR/>mrhen,<BR/><BR/>It's quite possible that some games just don't allow tie-breakers.<BR/><BR/>For Blokus, I'd at least consider a tie-breaker based on number of pieces left (vs. the score, which is number of squares). I'd suspect that a player who has less pieces left played more skillfully, though I'd need a more experienced player to verify that.Shannon Appelclinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10454937577535623129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-86050539410994344392007-10-12T12:58:00.000-07:002007-10-12T12:58:00.000-07:00I will chime along with those who said that some g...I will chime along with those who said that some games without tie-breakers is fine. In games where there is a particular objective, a tie-breaker makes sense. In a game where the goal is to accumulate points, I think ties are perfectly acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Some games really have no good method for breaking ties. How would you break a tie in Blokus?MrHen.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05321607692461149015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-14539273277737280482007-10-12T00:22:00.000-07:002007-10-12T00:22:00.000-07:00Thanks for this interesting read.As a player, I am...Thanks for this interesting read.<BR/>As a player, I am not a big fan of tie-breakers, especially in games where lots of points can be scored - finishing second on 100 points when someone has 101 is bad enough, but scoring 101 and losing on a tie-breaker feels even more frustrating.<BR/>Regarding Caylus, as a lazy designer, I thought that ties would be rare enough so that the problem would not arise very often. Also, which satisfying unique tie-breaker could have been used? Castle contributions would make sense and be nice thematically, but ties are likely to happen there as well (even if you decide to check each castle section individually) - and I prefer no tie-breaker at all than a whole arsenal of tie-breakers which prove inefficient in the end. The order of contributions could be an option, but besides forcing the players to remember it (not too much of an issue), it would give an advantage to some strategies (with early castle-building) compared to some others, for no very valid reasons (additionally, it wouldn't work for the very rare cases where several players tie with no builds at all in the castle - unlikely enough, I agree).<BR/>As for Caylus Magna Carta, which inherited the absence of tie-breaker from its big brother, you can rightfully argue that ties are many more common there, since the overall scores are lower. Castle building could have been an option here as well - with the same faults, maybe even stronger, than in Caylus (going by the order of contributions would be a huge advantage given to the first player, if stone is available among the neutral buildings). That's why the publisher and I decided to keep the absence of tie-breakers - even though some players like them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17779541990181293361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-31842074525460617092007-10-11T14:26:00.000-07:002007-10-11T14:26:00.000-07:00I find uniqueness important for two reasons.First,...I find uniqueness important for two reasons.<BR/><BR/>First, that you have some ultimately unique tiebreaker, so that after the nth tiebreaker you're not forced to declare an anticlimatic tie.<BR/><BR/>Second, to keep the tiebreakers within the realms of obvious.<BR/><BR/>Conversely, I think I'd be OK to have some large number of tie breakers if it's entirely obvious what each of them is. Ingenious and T&E are fine examples of this.Shannon Appelclinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10454937577535623129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-38532562041737040212007-10-11T13:37:00.000-07:002007-10-11T13:37:00.000-07:00As always, nice analysis, Shannon!I really don't m...As always, nice analysis, Shannon!<BR/><BR/>I really don't mind a game that ends with players "rejoicing in a shared victory" as Jay Tummelson puts it. Ties aren't the end of the world. During single elimination torunaments or if there is an indvisible prize for first, they can cause problems, but otherwise ties are great! (In the conditions it matters, there should obviously be a tiebreaker specified by the organizer of the event.)<BR/>However, if there are tiebreakers, I fully agree that obvious and fair are good characteristics, but as long as there is an eventual unnique one, I like having layers upon layers. It's more fun to be able to say, "I lost (or won) on the third tiebreaker!" than to say, "I had more money, so I won."<BR/>Both of these are obviously personal tastes, but I'd like to hear reactions to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-88294316990993923352007-10-11T09:43:00.000-07:002007-10-11T09:43:00.000-07:00I posted on BGG this past week about the Thurn & T...I posted on BGG this past week about the Thurn & Taxis tiebreaker. We had had a game where the scores were 22-31-31. The 22 went out first. Then my friend won with the 'first to the left of the person who went out' rule. I was especially bummed for two reasons:<BR/><BR/>1) This was a game about establishing postal routes, and I had used 19 of my 20 houses; the other 31 player had only used 18 of 20.<BR/><BR/>2) The 22 player had started the game, so we all had equal turns.<BR/><BR/>Tiebreakers are rare, but when they happen, players really do want them to be intuitive and sensible. With the above, I felt gypped.Smatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08728966785725757302noreply@blogger.com