Week 1 Observations/Suggestions

=====================Outside Player Space=================

1. Active games should list the total number of games as a number (both in Account and Name)
2. The games where a player has least amt of time left (when its players turn) should be at top of games list - is it already like this? I cant tell
3. Open games should be different colour when youve joined - same for active games
4. https://gaiaform.io/account does not show all active games - why click "see list of all games"?
5. Perhaps a little countdown timer beside games which are about to expire on your turn (2 hrs left, 1 hr left etc)
6. The ability to change your name? at least your "cool player name" 7================Inside Player Space=================
7. Put as much as possible on one page (or at least have some options to switch the playing space to suit your preferences and your individual screen space)
8. I have included a copy of what this might look like above - some people will invariably think my suggestion looks chaotic and this is why it should be optional/adaptable
9. I understand that this might take some serious changes and so is untenable now but it should be implemented as much as possible (without a huge time investment)
10. It could be put in the road map as a long term plan 10==========================================
11. "Jump to next active game" should scroll with the page on left hand side - I am always scrolling up and down to get to my new games
12. Button to turn off comments except when they are from another player - I keep checking to see if someone said something and its only the round notice
13. Bigger space for notes - less for the rest of the info
14. Turn order vertical on the left hand side which scrolls with the page (see my image attachment)Turn actions should be in the same space as the board 14==============================================
15. When referencing position space on the board, tile number should also be mentioned ("Tile 1", "Tile 2", etc) 
16. this is not done in move history so its harder to tell where a player made their last move 
17. I think the grid system could be improved to be clearer and more efficient
18. One option: Center of all tiles has a letter value: Center: C , Middle Ring: B, Outside Ring: A and numbers move clockwise from the top starting at 0 (or 12) as it does on a clock
19. examples: The top hex on Tile 1 would be: 1A0 (Tile 1 - Outer Ring A - Top position 0), bottom hex of Tile 1: 1A6, center of Tile 9: 9C0 19==============================================
20. All booster tiles should always be viewable with who has which one as part of the indication - grayed out ones not available or available ones in a slightly separated list
21. Zen factor should appear beside name when choosing to play w player and last player shouldnt automatically start game
22. A option so that you can choose not to play w players who have a low zen factor - I think this may already be in the works
23. Permanent circle of colours which scrolls with - I think this may already be in the works or something similar
24. Prioritize chat over settings - atm it covers the round bonus tile (for me) when I open it
25. Possible actions permanently on screen
26. Arrows to indicate turn/power (red/green) (see my example image)
27. For newbies you can have labels (optional) for all the sections ("Boosters", "tech", etc)
28. Switch to be able to see all player boards (see image example)
29. I tried to charge power w the Taklons and it said "brainstone area 2", "brainstone area 1" (which I chose and the brainstone didnt move). It seemed to me that it was saying the brainstone should move from area 1 but it didnt - very unclear. I see now that it meant that the brainstone should move to area 2. It should have said "move brainstone from area 1 to area 2?" this kind of mistake early on can cost you the entire game.
30. Have an indicator when youve made a comment/plan for yourself so you dont have to click to see if youve made notes - this is standard on lots of game sites
31. Chat directly w other players
32. Smaller header or eliminate it entirely - on my screen it tales up too much space
33. Update of graphics but I understand that will be implemented soon
34. Sorry for the formatting but it was the only way I found to number comments without restarting the numbers under a new heading - I want all comments to have a specific reference number even under a new heading

Good post. For me point 15 is the most important quality of life upgrade in the post. The current coordinate system is basically incomprehensible. I honestly don't care about points 16-19, just listing the tile number would solve the problem as people should know the general game state and if directed to a tile should be able to easily figure out where something was built.

Point 7 seems like it would be a lot of work, as stated, but would not provide all that much value IMO. There are a number of upgrades that the Snellman TM site has made that would provide far more value to most players such as: • ELO system (which I know is being worked on) • Searchable player/faction stats • Estimated final scores when playing in Round 6 based on current game state

A few other comments/ideas on my mind: • Ability to abandon games if all players agree. My friends and I do this when there is an boring/annoying setup (mostly satellite scoring) but one of us loses karma by letting it time out. • We would like to see satellite scoring removed from the game, or at least the option to exclude it from possible scoring tiles. Not sure how others feel about this. • This is a small point, but I think in Taklons games it only tracks the braincube if you have to make a decision about it. I'd like to see it always tracked in the game log for future analyses purposes (I'm pretty sure number of times braincube cycled will end up being the most important Taklon metric). • Lantid gaia planet round scoring needs to be either fixed or clarified. Currently, you do not get VPs for building on a gaia mine occupied by another player during gaia planet scoring rounds. Based on the wording in the rules, this is wrong. The rules state " This mine counts as a normal mine in all ways except the following: this mine cannot be upgraded, and it does not count for any effects that relate to how many planet types or Gaia planets you have colonized." Note it only mentions effects related to "how many" gaia planets you have, which is not relevant to round scoring.

@Semioteric said in Week 1 Observations/Suggestions:

Good post. For me point 15 is the most important quality of life upgrade in the post. The current coordinate system is basically incomprehensible. I honestly don't care about points 16-19, just listing the tile number would solve the problem as people should know the general game state and if directed to a tile should be able to easily figure out where something was built.

Point 7 seems like it would be a lot of work, as stated, but would not provide all that much value IMO. There are a number of upgrades that the Snellman TM site has made that would provide far more value to most players such as: • ELO system (which I know is being worked on) • Searchable player/faction stats • Estimated final scores when playing in Round 6 based on current game state

A few other comments/ideas on my mind: • Ability to abandon games if all players agree. My friends and I do this when there is an boring/annoying setup (mostly satellite scoring) but one of us loses karma by letting it time out. • We would like to see satellite scoring removed from the game, or at least the option to exclude it from possible scoring tiles. Not sure how others feel about this. • This is a small point, but I think in Taklons games it only tracks the braincube if you have to make a decision about it. I'd like to see it always tracked in the game log for future analyses purposes (I'm pretty sure number of times braincube cycled will end up being the most important Taklon metric). • Lantid gaia planet round scoring needs to be either fixed or clarified. Currently, you do not get VPs for building on a gaia mine occupied by another player during gaia planet scoring rounds. Based on the wording in the rules, this is wrong. The rules state " This mine counts as a normal mine in all ways except the following: this mine cannot be upgraded, and it does not count for any effects that relate to how many planet types or Gaia planets you have colonized." Note it only mentions effects related to "how many" gaia planets you have, which is not relevant to round scoring.

I agree with you about satellite scoring - our group just doesnt play play with it as we feel it doesnt add anything to the game

I think its clear that the Lantids dont get any "planet" bonuses (colour or gaia) for building on planets belonging to other players (if that is what you are referring to). Effectively Lantids get 2k for building on another player's planet and the buildings count for getting and giving power, total buildings, buildings in feds and sectors and thats it.

@Robert-Shepherd That's not how the rules regarding Lantids read. It specifically says "it does not count for any effects that relate to how many planet types or Gaia planets you have colonized". If it was meant to include gaia planet round scoring it should simple say "it does not count for any effects that relate to planet types or Gaia planets".

Edit: Upon further investigation, you are right. There is a lengthy discussion on a thread where the developer weighed in here https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1875760/lantida-question/page/1 While the rulebook is effectively wrong (or ambiguous at best), apparently the intent is more clearly demonstrated on the Lantids board. The rules for this site should be clarified as we can't see the actual playboards.

out of curiosity ... what is so bad about satellite scoring?

@Babbuc49

Personally I dont like the complication it brings to the game the way the official rules are written (one of my only complaints about IMO the best game ever made).

I would prefer the rule to be that you pick the buildings you want to include and you can use as many satellites as you want (25 max) but the official rule means that you have to see if the way you make the federation can be done with fewer satellites or fewer buildings and choose the minimum. This brings a needlessly complex situation to the game where in some scenarios you would like to build your federation out of a certain set of buildings but are prevented from doing so because of the satellite/federation rule. Effectively it prevents some freedom and is needlessly complex. There are threads on BGG about it if you want to know more.

It might also be interesting to note that most people just accept the game rules the way they are presented but I dont. What I love about Gaia is that nothing is hidden except your opponent's strategy and the federation rules go against the spirit of freedom in the game and make it needlessly complicated.

@Babbuc49

From my perspective satellite scoring just doesn't add enough strategic interest for how complicated it ends up being. It ends up being some fiddly thing about manipulating the board in ways that are almost impossible for casual players to understand (blocking out one fed so you are forced to build satellites around it the long way etc). I have already found two bugs in how the online system handles satellite building in corner cases, but I'm hoping it will just be removed from the game so I don't have to explain them :)

@Semioteric

In my group I argue for simplicity regarding making federations and IMO it is the rule which should be implemented for the game because it preserves simplicity. The adapted rule:

Pick any group of buildings with value 7 or more (7 max if it can be reduced - sometimes this isnt possible) Make the federation with the fewest number of satellites.

Simple

We also never include the satellite end game bonus and I think it should be scrapped and replaced by something else.

@Robert-Shepherd I believe this is already how federations are formed even on this site isn't it?

@Babbuc49 The main difference is that @Robert-Shepherd is skipping the 3rd and most 'complicated' step, which is reforming the federation if it can be done with one fewer building. With Roberts variant it is possible to spend more satelites to form a federation than should be possible according to official rules. Now i don't know why one would ever do that, except if to put down more satelites for the satelites FS. However, if you scrap that satelite FS tile it makes even less sense because what would the purpose now be of forming a federation that costs more satelties and even more power values of buildings (since that is now possible when skipping 3rd step).

Perhaps another way to look at it, is that the 3rd step exists to assist players in making the most optimal federation.

I didn't remember about that rule i think i never played with it :P but i have to say that here on this site i never had any problems forming the feds as i wanted so maybe i was using that rule unconciously... but anyway @Semioteric if you found bugs with federation forming i think you should still signal them since if satellite scoring will be removed i guess it will be as an optional variant because not everybody will agree at plainly removing it from the game as a default (I for example i have never disliked it yet)

To be entirely fair there are actually situations of which you'd want more buildings in your federation than necessary which is the 'Buildings in federations' final scoring... But given how situational that is i'd say rather assist players in making an optimal federation instead.

Personally i don't see any issues with the satelites FS. For me it only offers another level of planning since you want your last federation to be as 'long' as possible, which forces you to focus more on getting additional power tokens and even expanding further away. These just adds to the variability of the game since you now need to approach the game another way to score optimally.