@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, generally. I’ve also seen the term used where “the influence of a player to your left/right is outsized compared to the effect of players which are separated by at least one other player” (so in Pax Porfiriana or The King is Dead, you are responsible for stopping your left-handed opponent from winning).
In Cat the Box, our observation is the further you are from the trick leader that started that round, the more likely you are to get stuck in a bad situation. So we really want to either lead the trick, or be second. In a 3p game, we found it was just a quirk, but in 4p, the pressure on the 4th player to disrupt the tendency of “complete my run and get out” that you find in many (but not all) trick takers caused the game to be less stable and more often then not, the 4th player in that round fared worse.
I’m willing to accept it as a group dynamic issue in terms of conservative/aggressive play styles, but since you said you’d played at 5 (and none of my group) I thought I’d ask if you had seen a similar effect.
I’m afraid that this is probably still prevalent here (wasn’t looking for it, but I do recall a few feelings)! Depending on your prediction, you may only be looking to win one or two tricks, and if you’re positioned in seat 3 or 4 from the trick leader, you often find yourself having to play high beat the first few players only to be trumped by seat 5.
I also wonder if the prediction mechanic aims to keep the leader rotating so as to mitigate seating bias. You’re unlikely to get stuck with 1 leader that keeps trumping the hands as most people are aiming to win 1-3 tricks.
Interestingly, our games have always been won by players that just had 1 extremely good round. In other words, I suspect there’s an element to try and optimise the round in which you lead.
@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, we’ve seen the “blow out one really good round, and then don’t paradox” in 4p. 3p less so but it’s still a decent approach. This may just be a quirk of the design is all (and that’s fine. I have lots of games where there are annoyances and I still love them). I appreciate the replies, thanks.
@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, generally. I’ve also seen the term used where “the influence of a player to your left/right is outsized compared to the effect of players which are separated by at least one other player” (so in Pax Porfiriana or The King is Dead, you are responsible for stopping your left-handed opponent from winning).
In Cat the Box, our observation is the further you are from the trick leader that started that round, the more likely you are to get stuck in a bad situation. So we really want to either lead the trick, or be second. In a 3p game, we found it was just a quirk, but in 4p, the pressure on the 4th player to disrupt the tendency of “complete my run and get out” that you find in many (but not all) trick takers caused the game to be less stable and more often then not, the 4th player in that round fared worse.
I’m willing to accept it as a group dynamic issue in terms of conservative/aggressive play styles, but since you said you’d played at 5 (and none of my group) I thought I’d ask if you had seen a similar effect.
Great, thanks for clarifying!
I’m afraid that this is probably still prevalent here (wasn’t looking for it, but I do recall a few feelings)! Depending on your prediction, you may only be looking to win one or two tricks, and if you’re positioned in seat 3 or 4 from the trick leader, you often find yourself having to play high beat the first few players only to be trumped by seat 5.
I also wonder if the prediction mechanic aims to keep the leader rotating so as to mitigate seating bias. You’re unlikely to get stuck with 1 leader that keeps trumping the hands as most people are aiming to win 1-3 tricks.
Interestingly, our games have always been won by players that just had 1 extremely good round. In other words, I suspect there’s an element to try and optimise the round in which you lead.
@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, we’ve seen the “blow out one really good round, and then don’t paradox” in 4p. 3p less so but it’s still a decent approach. This may just be a quirk of the design is all (and that’s fine. I have lots of games where there are annoyances and I still love them). I appreciate the replies, thanks.
Agreed!
Thanks for the discussion (and lesson) to get me thinking more about the game!