by lategame
Here is my response.1. I see the fear that it allows the start player to have an early lead in buying cards, but in my experience it simply gooses the amount of energy that players have during the course of the game. The energy still functions the same and therefore carries with it the same set of decisions. Do I buy a card now for cheap or hold out for a more expensive card later? If the first player buys a card for 2 energy their first turn and the second player rolls 3 energy and buys a card for 5 energy their first turn, the first player didn't get a tremendous benefit out of their "free" card.
I have tried adding additional energy for sets of energy rolled or giving people energy each turn. The result is always a ridiculous amount of energy if people choose to pursue that avenue. So much energy that it's almost worthless because there are no cards available for purchase that they still really need. In the meantime it rewards other players with energy for doing absolutely nothing. I prefer this method, it gets the game started and powers into players hands a little faster without drastically altering the outcome.
As we enter this lower portion I think you have correctly identified the disconnect in styles. Your group seems to really focus on attacking each other, while mine attempts to build up and win the game via points or powers (powers that may ultimately aid in killing others).
2. In my experience it plays out like this. A person enters Tokyo with full health. The next player rolls for points or energy or health and gets 1 or 2 attacks. So on and so on. The person in Tokyo starts their next turn with 6 or so health. The fact of the matter is, if I personally have no shot of pushing the person in Tokyo out of Tokyo or killing the person in Tokyo, why would I focus on attacking them? I get no benefit specific to me, instead I may be offering Tokyo to a later player. I would rather collect energy or points or health (items that only benefit me, making me stronger than my opponents) rather than attacking 1 of the other players (making me stronger than 1 of my other opponents).
Also generally people don't die that much in our games, if you leave Tokyo you are safe from everyone but the person in Tokyo (who won't get another turn until after your next turn) you have the same odds for healing as they have for attacking (and with power up you can get a power as well). The only reason you would die is if you are unlucky and don't roll hearts at all while the person in Tokyo rolls attacks with a high degree of frequency. Alternatively you could act foolishly and attack the person in Tokyo while you, yourself are low on health (which admittedly you could do through simple misfortune).
Either way, it's worth noting much more damage will be dealt in a game with 5-6 people. So if you are having problems with people dying, raise the starting health for higher player counts where you can not as easily avoid death.
Maybe it's time your group ended the cycle of violence. The change starts with you, if you turtle, build power, and keep your health up while everyone else attacks each other, you should have a better shot at winning than they do (according to my estimation at least, which is certainly at times suspect).
3. Once again your focus is entirely on hurting others. Honestly it isn't overpowered to look at new cards because if you roll a set of 3 energy you likely didn't roll a set of anything else. You didn't get points, you didn't attack for a lot of damage, you didn't heal much and you didn't get an evolution power. What's more you are still just as restricted by the energy you have available. You may not want to sweep because you only have 4 energy and you are afraid to reveal a really good card to a player who has been hoarding. I also find that as the game reaches its midway point energy becomes far less useful because not only will you not get as much use from the powers you buy, but the powers available have been picked clean leaving only less useful powers behind. So I do think there are plenty of circumstances where you will want to sweep in order to get better cards on the table.
4. I'm not entirely satisfied with the controlled evolution variant in part because it means many of the powers in the evolution deck won't be chosen ever. Some of the evolution powers are simply better than others and why choose burger when you can have steak? I like keeping a random element for those players who really need the health. They might get lucky and get a power they can really use or they might get something that doesn't aid them much. It's a gamble. As for the conservative player, this is once again where our experiences diverge. If you are attacking everyone all the time the player with more hearts is the player who has simply rolled more hearts. If you are choosing to build up power rather than attacking constantly, the person with more hearts is the person who hasn't been risking death in order to accumulate points or to attack the other players and has instead been keeping their health up and earning powers.
It's also worth noting that if you roll a set of hearts you likely didn't roll a set of anything else and therefore did not get as much energy, or points, or attack power. This gives a small benefit to players who aren't taking the full benefit of the health (or for that matter any other major benefits from the die roll). For a player low on health rolling for hearts is obvious, this gives players who are higher on health a reason to also roll for hearts. Although it isn't such a major benefit that I think it totally unbalances the game even if the high health player is the current leader, with 2 cards you can still get a bad draw and with 1 card you can still get a good draw.
Conclusion:
3 of these changes are partially designed as a way of making the longer term strategy of accumulating powers and gathering points more viable (lowering the player health is designed so that players can't just continually stay in Tokyo and accumulate a massive amount of points, in those games where players don't attack as much). If that isn't your group's style, obviously these changes will not appeal.