"Recently there was a discussion if emptying Provinces should trigger the game end in Colony games. Then there are players who want everybody to have the same number of turns, so the game continues until before the starting player would take their regular turn again. Then there is a subset of those that want to put 'imaginary Provinces' in the Province pile, so in the turns after Provinces were depleted, the other players can buy them as well."
First of all, just because you identified that someone else had ideas to improve the game which were bad, does not mean all ideas to improve the game must necessarily be equally bad and get shot down, or sandbagged, or never implemented.
And it's pretty clear, while still a matter of opinion, that these two ideas aren't comparable to mine. There's a huge difference between changing the length of a game (thankfully, when a game just ends by way of cultist pile, ruins pile, and curse pile) vs these ideas, which are just about players griping about the number of points they had at the end of the game. Changing the length of the game adds a longer game experience, it adds more gameplay. It can turn a game that 'wasn't a game' into a game. This affects new players a LOT. But these ideas you're trying to compare to mine are just about modifying who has more VP at the end of what was essentially the same game. This variant would have basically no more gameplay than the original game, it just maybe would be more fair at picking the winner. There might be a bit a less luck in who wins, but there was just the same amount of strategy on the way there. But a game that doesn't get off the ground due to the 3-pile rule does lessen the amount of strategy over the course of the game while it also increases the role of luckily timed hands. You can praise the coolness of different possible outcomes to the puzzle of what to do when the third pile is close, yeah sure you can. But all that coolness would STILL be there when 4-pile is played, it's just that you'll actually have some more time to actually pick other cards and craft other combinations before the game reaches that point.
I also think these aren't sound ideas because 'who went first' doesn't warp the game so strongly. For instance there are also advantages to being player 2 in seeing what player 1 does first and essentially having more time to make your decisions.
But it's even possible that Donald had the people with gripes about the final turn count in mind when he designed the card 'Fleet', or that he shared their viewpoint somewhat. Obviously opinions about what would make the game better do help and deserve to be listened to. I mean the people on this thread opposing my idea even said I have a good point on what I'm proposing. So it's odd why I'm getting such angry blowback. It might speak to just how much 4-pile would improve the game over 3-pile. I've made very clear that it ought to be optional, so I can't understand why you guys are so threatened. Maybe you're afraid because if this was implemented, maybe you think everyone would just start selecting the 4-pile option and then the old version of the game you've gotten so good at would be harder to find automatches in. Who knows. The way I'd implement it if it were me, would be that if both players were fine with any version, for it to pick randomly between 3-pile and 4-pile. I can't foresee much downside to 4-pile, because these days the cards are so strong on average that the game almost never reaches a tedious state before all 8 provinces are gone (it sometimes would get this way in just the base game). So with all today's expansions, things are far from erring on the opposite side, of the game getting too tedious before it ends if played as 4-pile instead of 3-pile.