|
Broken Loose posted:I wish I knew this 24 hours ago Well if it's any consolation she says it'll be a ways off still, some months into 2015 if all goes to plan, so you'd still have been waiting a while apparently. Played a round of it btw, was entertaining but I agree with the previous poster who said gently caress that bell.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
Tekopo posted:This is pretty much the most lovely explanation that a designer can give when someone says that their game is unbalanced. Not entirely. If he was talking about the difference between, say, Free Drinks! (excellent card) and Ambush (poo poo card), I'd agree with him. There's nothing wrong with Intrigue cards being a bit of a crapshoot both in terms of situational applicability and raw power. Some people might not like it, but luck-based elements in a game aren't intrinsically bad. The issue with LoW isn't that some cards are better than others, but that some game-long effects (particularly Open Lord, but also e.g. Seize Citadel of the Bloody Hand right off the bat) are powerful enough to outweigh almost anything else if acquired early. The varying power of Lords is also a problem, but I don't find the Xanathar too bad if you play him right. I find Halaster the worst actually because the nature of the Undermountain quests is such that other people tend to snap up the 40-pointers even if they don't fit their Lord and you're rarely going to complete more than one or maybe two in a game even if you can get them, while most of the other ones give persistent advantages and thus fewer points, and so they're only worth completing in the early game. Contrast Sangalor, most of whose buildings and quests either give or return corruption and thus synergize strongly. So yeah... unbalanced short-term rewards and penalties do add variety to a game, but persistent effects need to be be balanced to avoid players running away with/getting shut out of the game long before it's over. xopods fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
So, lets chat about Small World. It's okay, I enjoyed it alright in the past but for me, it's like the Catan of Area Control/Strategy games: Light and fun enough in the beginning, but I would guess there's bigger and better stuff out there. It also seems like some race combos are overpowered and the only way to overcome it is by ganging up on whoever gets it, which isn't super fun and not interesting strategically (Skeleton/Elf combos elicit groans from the table in particular). Of course we could house rule it down, but I'd rather indulge my board game addiction and buy something new! What's everyone's favorite area control games that can play ~3-5 players? (Bonus points for not a too high level of complexity, so people who enjoyed Small World can jump in without being overwhelmed, but it's not necessary.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
PopZeus posted:So, lets chat about Small World. It's okay, I enjoyed it alright in the past but for me, it's like the Catan of Area Control/Strategy games: Light and fun enough in the beginning, but I would guess there's bigger and better stuff out there. It also seems like some race combos are overpowered and the only way to overcome it is by ganging up on whoever gets it, which isn't super fun and not interesting strategically (Skeleton/Elf combos elicit groans from the table in particular). Of course we could house rule it down, but I'd rather indulge my board game addiction and buy something new! KEMET
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
You want Kemet. Go buy Kemet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Kemet is the correct answer. Chaos in the Old World is almost as good, but the playstyle is quite rigid in comparison. Plus some people are big babies about the theme.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:[RE: "Playing for fun"] I have no idea what this means in the context of Tammany Hall. Like, there's no real room for wacky bullshit, which is what "just playing for fun" is usually a euphemism for, but Tammany Hall is pretty straightforward. If I want to propose an alliance and attack Sicily, and you would gain points by doing it at low risk, you should entertain the offer. I don't care if you say you will then play a betrayal card; I don't care if you ask Sicily for a better offer and get it. You're only hurting the fun of strategic thinkers when you say "nah" and go off to build a tiny railroad in the Arctic because you "don't care about Europe". It's kingmaking-by-negligence. And it's often mixed with slumped body posture, one word responses, AP, and a bringdown of the general mood. So instead of a game that's down-to-the-wire, you have one that ends 20 minutes before it ends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Kemet goes to 5. Chaos requires an expansion to reach 5, and we're still quite skeptical about the 5 player balance due to how finely-tuned the base game is. I think Kemet is a better bet even though both are great games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
xopods posted:Not entirely. If he was talking about the difference between, say, Free Drinks! (excellent card) and Ambush (poo poo card), I'd agree with him. There's nothing wrong with Intrigue cards being a bit of a crapshoot both in terms of situational applicability and raw power. Some people might not like it, but luck-based elements in a game aren't intrinsically bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
I've only played Kemet once, but it was with five. Had a great time and I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Anybody have any experience with Age of Empires III or its Builder expansion? From what it looks like, the base game is pretty good, but there are pieces of the expansion that should be avoided entirely (Nation powers). Is there other stuff to avoid? The base game is pretty good if you like combination worker placement/area control games. Use the Builders from the expansion and ignore everything else, the rest ranges from mediocre to unbalanced crap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Ettin you are the worst 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Outstanding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Ettin you are the worst Cone now, how could someone who has the moderating clout to be given reign over both RPG.net and the SomethingAwful Traditional Games subforum be the worst?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Cone now, how could someone who has the moderating clout to be given reign over both RPG.net and the SomethingAwful Traditional Games subforum be the worst? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Oh wow, that's fantastic. Like, really really fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Shrugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
I lost track of the thread three times ("I loving hate Arkham Horror!") before realizing a possible rename.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
sigh
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Guys don't worry, he did it on IRC to poke fun at me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
What's your's guy's favorite expansion
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:What's your's guy's favorite expansion Eldritch Horror.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:What's your's guy's favorite expansion elder sign
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:What's your's guy's favorite expansion a bonfire
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Arkham Asylum
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
Busted out the copies of Zombies!!! I was gifted, played with the rules from the eosteric order of gamers before it was pointed out they were fan rules. Interesting, if much too long. Got serious munchkin vibes towards the end, just glad we never tried it with roll and move, ugh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
So after a nice warm up game of Twilight Struggle, a friend and I decided to try a 2-player competitive game of Mage Knight, with expansions. We'd never played the game with just two. Seemed like the game would go faster. It was the worst experience I've ever had with a Vlaada game. My opponent picked Tovak, I pulled my character at random and ended up with Wolfhawk. This may have been my first mistake. I started strong, torching an early monastery for a Banner of Command. But somewhere in the middle, my opponent got a lucky run of easy enemies, while I ended up bouncing off an Orc Summoner with a Werewolf bodyguard and taking a fistful of wounds, and things spiraled away from me. Then the source ran dry (going all gold by the end of Tovak's first turn of night two), and I was stuck resting and drawing into more wounds, unable to buy healing or move into a glade because of the complete lack of mana. I conceded in near the end of night two, with my opponent three full levels above me. In my defense, it was 2AM, and Tovak was trying to math out the white city for the third time. Two player really seems to exacerbate the runaway leader problems with the game. For one, if one player lags behind, nothing prevents the player out ahead from hoovering up resources left and right, salting the earth in their wake. Second, the smaller dice pool seemed to lock up much faster with fewer hands stirring the pot (and less guarantee of someone taking Mana Search). This vastly favors the player in the lead, since they have more resources in to work with, and can make more incremental gains with unpowered cards, growing the gap. (Granted, I also have to take some of the blame for my own bad play. I'd never played with the comparatively tiny two-player maps, and over-invested in movement effects. Likewise, my deck was too mana intensive for the smaller dice pool. Also: sometimes it's better to block a nasty enemy and let it live, than to take the wounds and get the kill. This time is called "right before the reshuffle.") The next time we play two player, I think we're going to use one of the the headwind variants from Lost Legion. Probably Mana Locks, since it makes certain that the frontrunner cares about stale mana as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:What's your's guy's favorite expansion My wallets after selling. What's y'alls go-to lunchbreak game? My lunchcrew is slowly getting back to me, except for the guy who had all the games. Less than 30 minutes and portable is what I'm looking for
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Hanabi's pretty portable, and quick fun too! And if anyone asks what you're doing you can claim its a team building exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I forgot that we have Hanabi and Love Letter and Timeline already. Hanabi is great, but it's right at the time limit and sometimes goes over, which is not good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:So after a nice warm up game of Twilight Struggle, a friend and I decided to try a 2-player competitive game of Mage Knight, with expansions. We'd never played the game with just two. Seemed like the game would go faster. I've never played 2-player competitive, but I think playing with PvP on would help a lot. In multiplayer it's more about the threat of PvP and is used less, but in 2-player it's a lot easier to gain from it since you don't have third parties laughing at you. Having players cooperate to destroy the mana pool (since nobody wants their opponents to use it first) is pretty annoying even in multiplayer though, hopefully mana locks will help with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Archipelago actually does a good job of using ability cards of various levels of power (many are downright game changers) to create a really diverse game without the detriment of total imbalance. Freeform negotiation and many cards being usable by the players who don't own the card go a long way. Also, complicated games are awesome. At a certain point they tend to either end up being 18XX games or hex-and-counter war games. Magic Realm is one of the 20 or so exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:He was talking about the different Lords not being balanced against each other, though, not the difference between the different intrigue cards. Well, technically he was talking about Xanathar and Open Lord, only one of which is a Lord. But yes, the game has issues when it comes to the Lords in general (though I disagree Xanathar is as bad as everyone claims, they just don't know how to play him... but overall some are clearly better than others and Xanathar is at somewhat of a disadvantage). Mostly though I was objecting to your assertion that "variety" is a lovely excuse in general for imbalance and was pointing out that some kinds of imbalance are actually acceptable (or at least just a matter of taste) for purposes of "variety," or unpredictability, the same as any other luck-based mechanism. And that one clear way of distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable imbalance is whether we're talking about a short-term imbalance or something that's going to stick with a player for the entire game and compound itself the whole way. And also whether there are going to be other similarly significant luck factors later in the game that can potentially swing things back. Part of the problem with LoW is that most of the biggest luck factors (Lord draw, getting good persistent-effect quests early, etc.) come at the beginning of the game, and there isn't that much that can happen to swing things in the last couple of rounds unless the game is relatively close. I guess someone can narrowly make/narrowly miss completing a 40-point quest, or returning a bunch of corruption when the penalty is high, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
BonHair posted:My wallets after selling. Coup is amazing, for up to 6 people. It's a little like Love Letter in that you have hidden roles, trying to knock people out, and is quick. You can skip buying the expansion, and just add in the one good rule (factions) with a poker card for each player. Something like $12 in a little box. I've played it with a dozen people, and everyone's liked it and requested it again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
BonHair posted:My wallets after selling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
xopods posted:Well, technically he was talking about Xanathar and Open Lord, only one of which is a Lord. But yes, the game has issues when it comes to the Lords in general (though I disagree Xanathar is as bad as everyone claims, they just don't know how to play him... but overall some are clearly better than others and Xanathar is at somewhat of a disadvantage).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Actually, here are my suggestions for fixing LoW: (1) Everyone gets three Lords at the beginning of the game. (2) You choose one to play at the end of Round 4 and score the points immediately (he doesn't count again at the end of the game). (3) You choose another at the end of the game to score. The remaining Lord is discarded. (4) Open Lord requires you to lock in both Lords and discard the third immediately. (5) You can play Mandatory Quests on yourself. You keep Mandatory Quests you've completed. The player(s) who have completed the most at the end of the game get a 10 point bonus. (Or possibly most Quests in general - Mandatory and not?) Almost no Lords are useless this way (though Xanathar is arguably OP if you can take lots of corruption at the beginning, score points for it, then manage to return it all). Open Lord is still OP but not as much so since you reduce your own flexibility as well as giving opponents info. Finally, Mandatory quests are somewhat self-balancing in that if you gang up on one person you also make them a lock for the bonus. Whereas if they're about evenly distributed you may want to keep them to the end for the option to try to snipe the bonus. And if you give yourself Open Lord you basically take yourself out of the running.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:So after a nice warm up game of Twilight Struggle, a friend and I decided to try a 2-player competitive game of Mage Knight, with expansions. We'd never played the game with just two. Seemed like the game would go faster. I agree with pretty much all of this post. It's a fantastic co-op experience because you can both plan around each other so much better than in any other situation, but a head-to-head generally becomes very, very obvious who's going to win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
I'm getting Survive! Escape from Atlantis (30th) for Christmas; are there any expansions I should pick up right off the bat?
PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
kvx687 posted:The base game is pretty good if you like combination worker placement/area control games. Use the Builders from the expansion and ignore everything else, the rest ranges from mediocre to unbalanced crap. So I should just leave the new buildings out entirely, right? It's a shame, the expansion tiles are so much better quality than the base game tiles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 17:39
|
|