Of course the bias is not evident when there are great differences in scores, but when the players are very close to eachother as in the 3 preceding examples, this proposal can make a hudge difference.

There would remain some little bias if all players had not started the same number of rounds, but I don’t think there is a satisfactory way to remove this remaining bias (otherwise than playing as much games as the number of participants, each player starting round 1 once, then add the scores of all games to declare the final winner).

Excellent !

I think I will not be the sole player to appreciate

Thanks !

Fantastic !!! Many thanks 🙂🙂🙂

We played a game to test the update and the end was not what we expected.

We were 3, and the player who played second in the starting round managed to place all her token.

We expected the third player to play one more tile, then the game would be over as everyone would have played the same number of tiles.

Instead of that, the game ended as soon as the second player placed her last token.

boardgamearena.com/table?table=591195289

Thank you for the good job. !

Hello vurtan

I am so sorry to come back with bad news. We tested your update, and unfortunately it did not end as expected ( boardgamearena.com/6/framework?table=594278613&replayLastTurn=1&replayLastTurnPlayer=86858074 )

I think nevertheless that your idea to trigger the end of the game should remove all unfair endings.

To illustrate that I made the following reasoning for a 3 players game. Let they be players A, B and C. The playing sequence would be :
ABCA BCAB CABC
ABCA BCAB CABC
etc ....
ABCA BCAB CABC

We have to check what happens after the last sequence ABCA BCAB CABC and look what a fair ending would be.

For sake of simplicity, I will suppose that the end of the game happens after the first ABCA BCAB CABC sequence. If you have more such sequences, the conclusion would be the same.

I will write Xi when player X has placed i tiles. After the ABCA BCAB CABC sequence, the status of placed tiles is A4 B4 C4. Then here is what could happen during the next ABCA BCAB CABC sequence

1. Played : ABCA BCAB CABC = A4 B4 C4, new turn ABCA
a) A wins with first tile : A5 B4 C4 tiles --> B and C play = A5 B5 C5 --> stop
b) B wins : A5 B5 C4 --> C plays A5 B5 C5 --> stop
c) C wins : A5 B5 C5 --> stop
d) A wins with second tile : A6 B5 C5 --> B and C play A6 B6 C6 --> stop
e) No winner : A6 B5 C5  next turn

2. Played : ABCA BCAB CABC ABCA = A6 B5 C5, new turn BCAB
a) B wins with first tile : A6 B6 C5 --> C plays A6 B6 C6 --> stop
b) C wins : A6 B6 C6 --> stop
c) A wins : A7 B6 C6 --> B and C play = A7 B7 C7 --> stop
d) B wins with second tile : A7 B7 C6 --> C plays = A7 B7 C7 --> stop
e) No winner : A7 B7 C6 --> next turn

3. Played : ABCA BCAB CABC ABCA BCAB = A7 B7 C6 new turn CABC
a) C wins : A7 B7 C7 --> stop
b) A wins : A8 B7 C7 --> B and C play = A8 B8 C8 --> stop
c) B wins : A8 B8 C7 --> C plays = A8 B8 C8 --> stop
d) C wins with second tile : A8 B8 C8 --> stop

So, it appears that we have to check who is first to place their last token : it should be the last player that placed their first token during first round, i.e. player C in the example.
So if A places their last token, let B and C place one more token, if B places their last token let C place one more token, if C places their last token stop the game.

I haven't done the same job for more than 3 players, but I suppose that acting the same way should be fair.

In our table ( boardgamearena.com/6/framework?table=594278613&replayLastTurn=1&replayLastTurnPlayer=86858074 ) , we arrived at position 1d above and the game ended.

I hope I did not miss something important that could ruin the entire former reflexion.

Hello vurtan

Thanks for your invitation but your table is already complete.

Did we miss something in the game boardgamearena.com/6/framework?table=594278613&replayLastTurn=1&replayLastTurnPlayer=86858074 or do you confirm the wrong ending that we believe to have experienced ?

I agree, your table effectively finished as desired. The slight, but I think very important difference, is that your table was in situation 1b, whereas our table was in situation 1d. In our case the game should have continued with players B and C playing one more tile.

If you check the different cases that I have listed above, you could notice that in ALL cases the last player to play should be C. If A wins, B & C must play 1 tile each, if B wins C must play another tile, and if C wins you stop

Hi vurtan,

I had proposed to use the equal turns option for next season’s Arena format. It garnered the most votes, but wasn’t allowed due to its beta status. Please ensure to change this once the option is working as intended.
If it already does for 2p maybe talk to BGA admins now as there’s still some time before the next Arena season starts. I’m sure most competitive players would appreciate it.

Thanks for your work on Framework. :-)

I'd like to suggest another adjustment to the "Equal Turns" rule:

Determine the outcome (i.e the winner and rank of other players) based on the number of objectives that each player has completed after everyone has placed the same number of tiles (regardless of how many tokens are being used in the game). Without this adjustment, players can tie even when one or more of them could have played additional tokens (if they'd had them).

Here's an example: imgur.com/a/qwLrTOL
(from boardgamearena.com/table?table=610766824)

With the physical game, I would use some other token (coins, or an unused color token) to cover additional completed objectives on the tiles. It is not unusual for physical copies of games to allow for token substitutions.

My suggestion above is also written here:
boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=199951#p199951

Mingo is dead on. I’m supporting her proposal.

Mingo, I think you should open a new ticket with your proposal (or have you done it already ?). Make sure that the bug we encountered in our 3 players game will be fixed at the same time

Hello Vurtan

Happy to hear that everything works. Thanks for all the work on this game.

Did you make any updates after we played our 3 players game where the 1d situation ended in the wrong way ?