I'm in complete agreement here. It might lead to dropped games, but honestly dropped games happen anyway. I think I've only completed two games where at least one player hasn't dropped, and one of those was a two-player game.

And honestly, it might prevent dropped games. People drop games when someone else is taking a really long time and then they forget about it or lose interest. If it gave us the option for 5 minute (or even 3 minute?) turns, it would deter people from joining who don't want to play until the end, thus making it easier to complete a game without a drop.

I'm curious to know what percentage of 3+ player games are played to completion without any drops.

We got all these new additions to the player mat that track research position, but nothing that tracks number of sectors.

We track satellites, which are only relevant when they are a Final Scoring category, but sectors are relevant to two advanced technologies even when they aren't a Final Scoring category, but we still have to eyeball them.

Please! Sector counter!

I think we should switch the cancellation vote to a simple majority rather than unanimous.

Had a scenario recently where someone dropped out of a 4 player game, so myself and one of the remaining players voted to cancel, not wanting to play a game where the balance was thrown off so much (it was only round one or two, iirc). But the last person refused to cancel the game, in essence holding our Karma hostage. Either we leave and take the Karma hit or we play through a horribly unbalanced, unfun game where one of the players dropped. I ended up just quitting out and taking the hit, which I only regret because this system punishes that act so hard.

An alternative proposal could be to eliminate the Karma penalty after one player drops - giving the other players a free out, if you will.

In either case, I don't see the problem with a majority vote and there are plenty of problems with the unanimous vote.

We have a satellite counter on the player board, which is really nice, but it would make even more sense to also have a sector counter. I know the final scoring tile does that, but that's not always the final scoring tile and sectors are relevant throughout the game with two different advance techs.

We got all these new additions to the player mat that track research position, but nothing that tracks number of sectors.

We track satellites, which are only relevant when they are a Final Scoring category, but sectors are relevant to two advanced technologies even when they aren't a Final Scoring category, but we still have to eyeball them.

Please! Sector counter!

@cneessen My point about the Hadsch Halla was really that the Ivits were in a better situation. That was more minor. Similarly the Terrans would I think clearly by a better pick that the Lantids. The have immediate adjacency to three Transdim planets on top of an attractive Gaia Track. Combine that with the perception of the Lantids as such an undertuned faction, and it seems like a troll pick.

Glad we can agree on the Geodens! haha.

I couldn't agree more with this. I see players all the time artificially inflating their ELO because all they have to do is ensure they don't get stuck with the trash faction that they themselves put into the pool.

That loophole honestly makes Auction Factions a TERRIBLE variant. It's not Gaia.

Something needs to be done. I'm not sure if giving a zero-point bid a free pick is the best, because I don't think it will solve the problem. Like, what happens if people put two really bad factions in the pool? Maybe that second-worst faction gets a one- or two-point bid but then becomes the absolute worst faction because the other person got a free swap.

I wonder if the solution might be to give each player a ban beforehand. So either they can ban a really great faction that has a huge advantage, or they can ban terrible factions that they don't want to see in the pool. With 4 faction bans, it's probably very difficult to get a pool that's too imbalanced.

I just accidentally joined an Auction game after swearing off them and it immediately proved me right. This game: https://www.boardgamers.space/game/Menacing-picture-2540. I picked first and looked at the map and tech track and scoring tiles and figured that the Ambas have a pretty good game, so I put them in. The next pick? The Lantids. Unreal. The Lantids are already considered one of the weakest factions, and in this game in particular there are no obvious huge planet clusters, and two of their home planets are on the edge. Then the next person inexplicably chose the Hadsch Hallas over the Ivits, who would clearly be better. And then the icing on the cake is the Geoden pick. The Geoden's have three home planets on edges and a fourth just one hex away from the edge. It's a total joke. In this game, the good choices are clear: Ambas, Ivits, Terrans, Itars, Xenos, Taklons. But no, let's feed the bad factions in so I don't have to face any of those.

We have a satellite counter on the player board, which is really nice, but it would make even more sense to also have a sector counter. I know the final scoring tile does that, but that's not always the final scoring tile and sectors are relevant throughout the game with two different advance techs.

I think we should switch the cancellation vote to a simple majority rather than unanimous.

Had a scenario recently where someone dropped out of a 4 player game, so myself and one of the remaining players voted to cancel, not wanting to play a game where the balance was thrown off so much (it was only round one or two, iirc). But the last person refused to cancel the game, in essence holding our Karma hostage. Either we leave and take the Karma hit or we play through a horribly unbalanced, unfun game where one of the players dropped. I ended up just quitting out and taking the hit, which I only regret because this system punishes that act so hard.

An alternative proposal could be to eliminate the Karma penalty after one player drops - giving the other players a free out, if you will.

In either case, I don't see the problem with a majority vote and there are plenty of problems with the unanimous vote.

I'm in complete agreement here. It might lead to dropped games, but honestly dropped games happen anyway. I think I've only completed two games where at least one player hasn't dropped, and one of those was a two-player game.

And honestly, it might prevent dropped games. People drop games when someone else is taking a really long time and then they forget about it or lose interest. If it gave us the option for 5 minute (or even 3 minute?) turns, it would deter people from joining who don't want to play until the end, thus making it easier to complete a game without a drop.

I'm curious to know what percentage of 3+ player games are played to completion without any drops.