Why is the default that the points show?

[leafyscreen]

With points showing, so many games (particularly multi player) end in 3 pile endings. All it takes is to figure out if you can end up with more points on a last turn. When someone buys 8 estates to end a game, that is utterly ridiculous. That is the most extreme example, but there have been numerous other ridiculous endings. That would never happen if the points were not showing. The game was not meant to be played like that. Without the points showing, no game would end that way. It takes some of the skill out of deck building. There have been great and fun kingdoms ruined by 3 pile endings.

Why not make the default no points showing? So what if someone keeps track on the side. If it means that much to you, you can do it too. But there are those of us who like to play the game as it would be at a table where you can't be sure of what the points are. Try it sometime and see how it changes the game.

And don't suggest setting up a game with the points off and wait for someone to join. That's a losing cause as very few people seem to join games from the table list.

[Ingix]

My experience with good players on a table is that they are very aware of point totals (mostly not totally accurate, but up to 1-2 points). That means buying 8 estates is something that would not elude them, if the result is very likely to make them win. Same for other 3-pile endsing with empyting low Action piles.

That means while the pinpoint "I with exatly 1 point" endings would likely not happen that often, it's a far cry from your assessment that it will never happen.

[leafyscreen]

I disagree. I have played hundreds of games at the table with 2, 3, or 4 players and the number of games that end with 3 piles is maybe 10%. It's a bit gutsier to try when you aren't quite sure who has how many points.

It is easier to do with 2 people, but easy with 3 or 4.

[santamonica811]

leafy,
1.  In your games; do you guys set up your own kingdoms?  I ask, because WAY more than 10% of my own games end in 3-piles.  That was interesting to read.

2.  I (respectfully) disagree with you...what you find ridiculous about ending a game with a mass purchase of all the estates, I see as brilliant gameplay.  I've constructed a "better" deck, with lots of powerful actin cards, and loads more gold.  But you saw what I was doing, and you constructed a deck with the ability to do this mass-purchase, and you cleverly made sure you were ahead in VP.  I see that as a great use of strategy.  In other words, it's a feature, and not a bug, of the game, that it can end suddenly and unexpectedly, like this.

3.  I completely agree with you about keeping track of VP.  In fact, in my own online games, I put a Post-It note over that part of my computer screen.  I want to keep in practice for my IRL games, re keeping track of my and your VP.  But . . . I'll note that if you set the computer to hide VP from all players in a game, the workaround for those players is to say, "Sorry...I'll need 4 minutes for this upcoming turn, so I can go back into the Game Log, and tally up all the VP earned so far."  That just slows down the game, and makes playing much less enjoyable, IMO.  Also, in IRL games, turns go more slowly and players (in my games, at least) announce any VP earned that turn.  So, it's easy to keep a running tally.  But online, turns can move in a blink of an eye and it's often impossible to keep track of VP if you're not going back and reviewing the game log.  Given that, might as well let (most) players see the actual VP totals.