So, much is being observed and commented on about snowballers and one player getting all the Wonders. I was thinking that a different method could be used to approach at least the Wonders part of it. How about a manipulation of the current "failure reward" when someone else gets the Wonder before you do? I'll explain what I mean. First, I'll start by saying that the failure reward is rather awful. I know that the counter-argument to bolstering it is that it's abusive somehow, but I can't say that I could see it - at least not for the underdog. And there's two ways to be an underdog here. A - You're the guy with 1 Wonder to someone else's 10. B - Someone else finished a Wonder when you had 3 turns or left to finish it. I'll deal with B first. Obvously, the risk involved with investing in a Wonder is that you don't get it. However, I would say that *not getting the Wonder is punishment enough in and of itself* - while obviously 100% returns is unreasonable, I quite frankly don't see the problem with dumping most of the rest of that production into unbuilt buildings, because you still don't have the Wonder. This isn't so bad if you're only like 3 turns into building it. But if you have only 3 turns *left*, the punishment increases the more you've invested in it. The point here is that this can be game-breaking in its own right: a gap that is needlessly artificial is bring created between a player who succeeded in building a Wonder and one who did not. A way of re-expressing the failure reward formula would be to say that the more you have invested in a Wonder, the higher proportional total returns you receive. This will naturally encourage players to aim at wonders that they *might* get - because they might actually succeed, and that success would pose a challenge to the front-runner. Upon failure, the investment still isn't a waste of time because the rewards for barely missing are still substantial. So the question is - what if he front-runner barely missed? This is where we go to the aforementioned A situation. How about we mediate failure rewards in a similar manner to how techs decrease for a player for each other player that has that tech? What this would mean is - for each Wonder I own, my reward for failure is determined proportionally against the player who completed it. If I have 5 and the person who completed it had 5, then the reward is moderate; if I have 10 and the player who completed it has 1, the reward is awful; if I have 1 and the player who completed it has 10, the reward is substantial. The setup here is such as to incentivize players to challenge the front-runner as much as possible whenever possible for those Wonders: the front-runner will either get beaten out to the Wonder and get poor payback, or will get the Wonder, but at a cost that if he leads too much, the rewards for failure will be insane. It's a subtle catching-up mechanic. Brief Synopsis: Like having Bronze/Silver rewards in WC projects (where Solve is within 3 turns of completion), but the reward is magnified or diminished based on how many Wonders the person who completed the Wonder has in relation to you.