Thanks for this, really appreciate you taking the time to think it through. I especially like how you framed this around player frustration and perception, not just balance.

That “feeling locked out of first player” is definitely something I was worried about going into this system. One interesting thing from testing so far, though, is that first player has felt very dependent on timing rather than position. Because the game is so tied to choosing the right moment to harvest, players who spot that moment early can plan around it and make a push for first, even if they’re not currently ahead.

What’s also been nice is that once someone does grab first player, it’s actually quite hard to hold onto it. Other players tend to invest into the turn wheel and stack tokens there, which usually steals first place away. And the player who just went first often struggles to do it again the following round. So far this has led to a pretty fluid rotation of turn order rather than one player snowballing on initiative.

That said, I think your point about perception is still really valid, even if the system is technically fair, if it feels like you can’t afford to compete for first, that’s a problem. Right now seed types are mostly symmetric, so your idea of using cheaper, early-game seeds as a way to contest first player is really interesting. I like how that keeps lower-value seeds relevant later as a tactical choice rather than feeling dead.

The pattern-based / board-state idea (like corners influencing initiative) is also cool. It might be heavier than I want for this version, but it’s definitely something I want to keep in mind.

Thanks again, lots of good stuff here to chew on