3

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-08-02

Final complete day: 2026-08-02. Attention was 0.3% — this entity appeared in 30 of 9,589 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (46 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-08-02 14:38 UTCComment

   The rules are different, but not that rule. Only changes are you have 3 cards in the market and 3 spaces to select from, then after every turn the other two spaces you didn’t select are removed from play and all three spaces are filled with new pieces.

2. 2026-08-01 15:54 UTCComment

   I never said 3 was ideal. I just chimed in why I think the game works well at 3 and doesn't require 4 to be a good time. Regarding the poll, I don't think recommending something is the same as just saying "it doesn't suck."

3. 2026-08-01 14:30 UTCComment

   7 players. I've played 2. 3. 4 and 5 somewhat. Oddly enough, very often 6. Sometimes 8. But 7? Damn, never got to play that way.

4. 2026-08-01 09:48 UTCComment

   >Yeah, the game is best at 4, but even on bgg 70+% recommend it at 3 and 20% think it's best at 3. You keep contradicting yourself. First it's best at 3, Now it's best at 4. And also "ideal", per an above comment. And here you cite a poll (the same one I cited) that shows a very very small minitority (only 20%) think it's best at 3. Sure, lots recoommend it - because it can be played. And it doesn't suck. But it's not *ideal*. And it's not *best* (since you think those are difffernt things). That would be 4.

5. 2026-07-31 20:41 UTCComment

   I don't think I've had a 3 player game that boiled down to the way you described. Factions score at much different paces, so if everyone just focused on point scoring, the faction with the biggest burst potential will always likely win. The cats seem like the main faction where battling can actively "slow" them down, but even then they might be able to get some points from destroying cardboard. Other factions like the birds or moles can essentially take free battle actions. The WA do their battles after their main point scoring part of their turn (spreading sympathy). All this to say, I don't think engaging in a battle automatically puts the attacker at a disadvantage based on action economy. Yeah, the game is best at 4, but even on bgg 70+% recommend it at 3 and 20% think it's best at 3.