|
BonHair posted:In this short example, only three hints were given, but a lot more information could be deduced. It was, in my opinion, not conveyed by cheating, but by deduction and indirect clue-giving within the confines of the mechanics. The fact that C did not start with two blue ones could only be deduced from the absence of a hint, which is not really equivalent to verbal communication. You have to distinguish between pseudo-verbal communication, which is cheating, and communication through mechanics and deduction, which is the fun game. And to me, this is a pretty clear-cut difference. You used half your clues in this process, though, and players currently have no indication of either what cards to play next or what cards are safe to discard, short of "don't discard that 5." A had no indicator that his second 1 was playable, and in fact if A's 1s were identical there would be a risk of a bad play on A's turn even though the information given up to this point wouldn't have changed. Hanabi, conceptually, is interesting. Players use verbal negative space to convey information. The bounds of the negative space aren't clearly defined, however, which is the core of the argument. The closest analogue is old Pandemic. You couldn't show your cards, but you could certainly say what they were, which defeats the entire purpose of the "no show" rule. Games would then be solved without teamwork, a problem which the initial rule was attempting to prevent. Is saying what you have against the rules? No. Is the initial rule not a satisfactory solution? According to the designer, yes. Does the game degenerate without communication barriers? Yes. These things mean that it's a bad game. Is a metagame solution to Hanabi against the rules? No. Are the communication rules not a satisfactory solution to whatever problem they were trying to solve? I believe the answer is yes, because it's trivial to come up with metagame solutions, innuendo, or other means by which to bypass the communication rules. Does the game degenerate without communication barriers? Yes, because the game is designed around players only being able to specifically claim certain facts. Hanabi is a concept of a rule that is a solution looking for a problem which was reverse-engineered into a mixed bag of an experience. The answer to the question of whether or not tons of people are cheating at Hanabi is not nearly as significant as the existence of the question itself. The only other games I can think of with similar problems are Arkham Horror and Warhammer 40,000, both of which are hugely derided for the existence of said question (in addition to other problems, yes, but this is a major problem for both). The rule may be clearly written, but it's a bad concept around which to base an entire game. Lottery of Babylon posted:It depends on how many players you have. 2-player games fall heavily to luck because ten total cards in hand just isn't enough room to work with, but larger games you can win consistently. Most of my games are four-player, where being screwed by luck is rare. This is absolutely true, and it should be noted that my Hanabi experience is largely (but not entirely) limited to 2- and 3-player games.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I believe the answer is yes, because it's trivial to come up with metagame solutions, innuendo, or other means by which to bypass the communication rules. Does the game degenerate without communication barriers? Yes, because the game is designed around players only being able to specifically claim certain facts. I think you are once again conflating the two extra modes of conveying information: the deductive version, which BonHair described perfectly, and the blatant cheating version, which involves winking one eye at certain times to provide extra information. The deductive version is useful, but it certainly doesn't make the game degenerate or remove communication barriers. You yourself just admitted that the opening BonHair described still cost a few clues and didn't tell the players what the rest of their hands looked like; obviously the communication barriers haven't been torn down. On the other hand, the winky bullshit will remove communication barriers entirely, which destroys the game - but that is against the rules in both letter and spirit. In all of your posts you write as though these two methods of providing extra information are equivalent. They're not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:You used half your clues in this process, though, and players currently have no indication of either what cards to play next or what cards are safe to discard, short of "don't discard that 5." A had no indicator that his second 1 was playable, and in fact if A's 1s were identical there would be a risk of a bad play on A's turn even though the information given up to this point wouldn't have changed. I disagree. A can, by the very same reasoning as C play his second one. From there, it gets a lot more muddy, but not without information. B can be fairly certain that none of her cards are fives, and she can thus discard with relatively little risk. This is not 100% certain, no, but it's not completely random gambling either, by a long shot. And yes, hints are extremely limited, so that you have to use these contextual clues instead of just hinting Broken Loose posted:Is a metagame solution to Hanabi against the rules? No. Are the communication rules not a satisfactory solution to whatever problem they were trying to solve? I believe the answer is yes, because it's trivial to come up with metagame solutions, innuendo, or other means by which to bypass the communication rules. I don't believe the solutions are trivial, if you work honestly within the confines of the restriction. See my above post for the distinction between pseudo-verbal communication and deductive/mechanic communication. But I can see how the restriction is not satisfactory to you, just like real time pressure is not satisfactory to some people. Broken Loose posted:The answer to the question of whether or not tons of people are cheating at Hanabi is not nearly as significant as the existence of the question itself. The only other games I can think of with similar problems are Arkham Horror and Warhammer 40,000, both of which are hugely derided for the existence of said question (in addition to other problems, yes, but this is a major problem for both). The rule may be clearly written, but it's a bad concept around which to base an entire game. I really don't see the problem in real life with Hanabi. People in my experience can recognize what counts as cheating and what doesn't pretty easily after a few games. It's just a rule that takes some getting used to, like using fire block against ice attacks in Mage Knight. Actually, Mage Knight is a great example of cheating going on all the time, because no one can remember all the rules. The fact (it's not even really a question) that there is cheating doesn't really cahnge that the game is good, as long as you try to minimize cheating when you discover it, and don't cheat on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
different topic:Indie Boards and Cards posted:While my hope is to avoid all minor issues, I tried to make it perfectly clear in the risks and challenges section of the project that such errors may occur: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
That's pretty loving terrible. Who the hell thought those were OK to send out? Were they blind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
The attitude of the update is even worse. "If you back anything I make on kickstarter then it's your fault" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:That's pretty loving terrible. Who the hell thought those were OK to send out? Were they blind? No, they work for a lovely company that gives zero fucks because everyone sucks their dick over two flavour-of-the-month games. IB&C are going to get a very rude awakening, very soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
In the time that it would take someone to read all of this discussion about Hanabi, they could just head over to BGA and play several hands of Hanabi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Schizoguy posted:In the time that it would take someone to read all of this discussion about Hanabi, they could just head over to BGA and play several hands of Hanabi. But we're trying to be right about how the game works damnit! (I agree, this is getting stupid, and I don't think we're getting anywhere anymore. It's a good game for some, and not a good game for others. Fun is still subjective) Broken Loose posted:different topic: Just don't play it in a well-lit room! The game works perfectly fine if you're half-blind, just go stare into the sun until it works. The game is fine, it's just your world that isn't quite down to specs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
BonHair posted:Just don't play it in a well-lit room! The game works perfectly fine if you're half-blind, just go stare into the sun until it works. The game is fine, it's just your world that isn't quite down to specs. Specs would seem to be part of the problem. You should take them off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
BonHair posted:But we're trying to be right about how the game works damnit! Card sleeves seem like the only answer to me. Its kinda lovely that this game is essentially making you buy them though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
 How can a game with secret cards gently caress up this bad? I am amazed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:The attitude of the update is even worse. "If you back anything I make on kickstarter then it's your fault" Well, I mean he's right. Don't back Kickstarter stuff unless you're ok receiving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
I can't really see the color difference, but that finish difference is pretty damning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:I can't really see the color difference, but that finish difference is pretty damning. Are you colorblind? That isn't meant to be an insult, but if you were green-red color blind that would make sense. I think whoever was working on these cards had to have been to not see the difference, and if you are also that might give some confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Are you colorblind? That isn't meant to be an insult, but if you were green-red color blind that would make sense. I think whoever was working on these cards had to have been to not see the difference, and if you are also that might give some confirmation. Yep, I'm colorblind. There's a few other thread regulars who are, too. I also think the difference would be more noticeable in person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
IB&C wanted to make a colourblind friendly game and they went a little bit overboard On that note, more games should be colourblind friendly. Age of Industry was good about this, as can be seen below:  Although I think it was the huge fallout from Liberté, which was unfriendly in terms of colours even if you weren't colourblind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
On the subject, I was thinking about it and I may have been a bit hasty with my assessment of Red7's colorblind-friendlyness. I can't tell the entire blue through violet side of the deck apart, but I mean, they wrote the color and the rule on the edge you can see while you have them fanned. It's as colorblind friendly as a game with 7 colors can be, I suppose. It's more colorblind-friendly than 7 Wonders, which hates you and wants you to be sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:On the subject, I was thinking about it and I may have been a bit hasty with my assessment of Red7's colorblind-friendlyness. I can't tell the entire blue through violet side of the deck apart, but I mean, they wrote the color and the rule on the edge you can see while you have them fanned. It's as colorblind friendly as a game with 7 colors can be, I suppose. It's more colorblind-friendly than 7 Wonders, which hates you and wants you to be sad. I have a few friends who have trouble with Quantum, since they can't tell the red and green dice apart. It pretty much means they are restricted to 3-player or less games since that way we don't have to use either the green or the red dice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Oh btw, let's have a look at a bad, awful, no-good use of colours: This is the Liberte board.  These are some of the cards. Notice that the purple ones don't quite match any colour on the board!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
It's good that blind board game designers can get work. That's a travesty. I can actually tell the board colors apart, though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Well, I mean he's right. Quoted for truth. One of our guys is addicted to Kickstarter, and while occasionally we get something serviceable, most of them are played once and are proven to be so bad that no one will play them again. Even the ones that are good are casual, light and still have flaws. Tekopo posted:On that note, more games should be colourblind friendly. Age of Industry was good about this, as can be seen below: I think colorblindness considerations is one of the most important things a game can have. I mean, if someone has a physical handicap like Muscular Dystrophy or Cerebal Palsy that somehow prevents them from playing Jenga, there is only so much you can do as a designer to help them. However, colorblindness is something that can be overcome with some foresight in the design process. I just played Guildhall this weekend, and it's based around 5 colors, but the colors are also indicated with symbols for each color on one side, so people of any level of colorblindness can still play. Also, I saw a friend's newer printing of Splendor, and it's been changed to have little gem symbols in addition to the colored circles, presumably for the same reason. It's something I wish more designers would be cognizant of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Legacy: The Testament of Duke of Crecy is color blindness simulator. This random BGG photo is cheating a bit because of the blur, but Trzewiczek somehow got a great idea of having a white and a cream player in the same game. Also, somewhat similar blues were used, but it's not nearly as funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
unpronounceable posted:What are the best compact Dominion storage solutions? I just got a couple of the big expansions, and would rather not take my 3 boxes around when I bring it somewhere. Should I just get a bunch of MtG deck boxes and label them? From a bit back. I've got a complete Dominion set, which I've managed to condense into two boxes (I use the base box and Dark Age) by basically tearing up a couple 2-inch 3-ring binders. For each, I cut out the spine/ring mechanism, trimmed it, fit it in the box, and filled the box with binder pages. One box has Base, Intrigue, and Seaside, along with a set of Dominion Base Cards (still in the little box) and the various accessories (coins, tokens, mats). The other box holds the other six expansions, plus a page of promos. The randomizer cards and extra treasure/victory cards are in a box in my closet, and I use the Randominion app on my smartphone to generate kingdoms instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:different topic: I took a good look at mine just now and it seems like it's only really going to be an issue for the Hunter and Reverser ones The Rogue success ones match up with the new success/fail cards included in the expansion perfectly - probably the same print set (dark - with high red content) The 2 regular success fail cards from the hidden agenda pack are a bit lighter but still have a higher red content than the reverse and chief fail cards They all have a much darker ink than my original success/fail cards from the 2nd edition base game Whether or not it's actually noticeable during the game is another question entirely though, when the cards are piled, maybe I'm guessing someone "looking for it" will notice it but if you're cautious I don't think it will make a huge difference That said - this is something that they should have caught in the proofs
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
So I got a chance to break out the copy of Spyrium I got over the holidays. It's by the same guy that made Caylus (can't recall his name), and while it may not be as brain-burner at that game, it definitely makes you think your turns through thoroughly. There are varying strategies and every one of the six turns in the game left me wishing I had more actions, but in the best way possible. There's a good suppy/demand aspect, and a bit of dicking with other players, but the main thing to be concerned with is timing. Considering this is still less than $16 on Amazon, i'd recommend this to pretty much everyone who likes euro style games. I also got a copy of Machi Koro, which sucks if you use the default way of setting the game up, but is pretty okay if you use the variant 8/9/10 pile set up for 2/3/4 players. Considering a game takes less than 20 minutes, it never really outstays its welcome, and is a decent filler choice. Considering I paid just $5 for after spending my winnings by coming in third at a local shops X-Wing tournament, I feel I got my money's worth. enigmahfc fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
While we're on the subject of Dominion, I got the Alchemy expansion for Christmas, which I'm jazzed about, since it means I never have to pony up any money to buy Alchemy. (I also got Agricola  ). So, two questions:1: What, precisely, are the major flaws of Alchemy? 2: I've heard there are one or two good cards in the expansion. Which ones are those?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I just sorted through all the cards from Legendary Encounters: An ALIEN Deck Building Game. This thing had better be fun after all that. Also, that is the worst title for a game. Shouldn't they be making more of a point to highlight the Alien brand? "Legendary" is all huge and glowy like anyone gives a poo poo about that. I was so confused about what the hell this thing was when I first stumbled across it online.  I get that they want to promote their family of products, but this seems bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Legendary Encounters is a guilty pleasure of mine. It kind of works in that it is full co-op, but in terms of a proper deckbuilder it is a bad game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
NuclearPotato posted:While we're on the subject of Dominion, I got the Alchemy expansion for Christmas, which I'm jazzed about, since it means I never have to pony up any money to buy Alchemy. Having two orthogonal currencies doesn't really work. In order to make potions relevant when there's only one potion card in the kingdom they're all designed to be worth buying in multiples, which means almost all of the actions are cantrips, which leads to slow games. Apprentice is my favorite Dominion card. It doesn't even really care about potions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Well, I have learned something in the past few pages. I originally said Hanabi has turned into "when I say THIS I mean THAT" for us, I guess I really meant that it has become "ritualized" for lack of a better term and lost its shine. Based on the stuff I have read here I have realized that hell, we may have played it until it feels like we know what each other are thinking but at least we're not even wink-wink cheating like in some of the stories and examples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
The use of symbols is helpful, but upper left and lower center are nigh-indistinguishable to me. This is inexcusable. The first two are essentially the same color and I can only barely tell the difference when they're right next to each other. If we're talking about games that are rough for colorblind people, gently caress ARCHIPELAGO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
I went through mine to see if all these pictures were just an exaggeration. Nope. It's probably worse in person. The cards I have that are affected: Spy Rogue role Resistance Rogue role Chief Fail cards Reverser cards The difference between Rogue Success and normal Success / Fail is there too, but is not nearly as bad -- you would have to look extremely closely for more than a few seconds to spot it, so I'm not too upset about those. E: The differences are so bad on the others, I can take a bunch of cards, shuffle them, and pick out all of the chief fail and reverser cards every time. Myrmidongs fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Legendary Encounters is a guilty pleasure of mine. It kind of works in that it is full co-op, but in terms of a proper deckbuilder it is a bad game. I think it's a really solid start to coop deckbuilders, I'm interested to see what else ends up coming out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I think it's a really solid start to coop deckbuilders, I'm interested to see what else ends up coming out. Shadowrun Crossfire is a recently released co-op DBG as well, but I haven't heard much about it aside from there's apparently a campaign mode of sorts. I believe it saw a bunch of long delays in releasing and a lot of the hype around it kind of fell flat once it finally hit shelves (at least locally this has been the case, I don't think my FLGS has sold a single copy), so might be why no one is talking about it/comparing the two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:The use of symbols is helpful, but upper left and lower center are nigh-indistinguishable to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Do you mean the colours are indistinguishable for you? I should have explained that you can completely ignore the colours and just use the symbols instead, since they are directly equivalent. Yeah, that's what I meant. I realize the symbols are directly equivalent and that's a really good thing. Still, I've managed to grab the wrong colors in Ticket to Ride, so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
NuclearPotato posted:While we're on the subject of Dominion, I got the Alchemy expansion for Christmas, which I'm jazzed about, since it means I never have to pony up any money to buy Alchemy. 1. All Potion-cost cards are balanced around the concept that they may be the only Potion-cost card in the game, so they're all degenerate and self-comboing. Once you get more than 1 of them in the same game, poo poo gets really out of hand and people are doing 10-minute action chains that vomit everywhere. 1 is okay, although there are instances where even just 1 is almost gamebreaking (Familiar in particular comes to mind). And then some of the cards are just terrible, like University and Transmute. 2. Herbalist and Apprentice, the 2 non-Potion-cost cards, are good and usable in normal games. Apprentice in particular is almost worth the cost of the set; the main reason I don't recommend just avoiding Alchemy is so you can pick up Apprentice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Merauder posted:Shadowrun Crossfire is a recently released co-op DBG as well, but I haven't heard much about it aside from there's apparently a campaign mode of sorts. I believe it saw a bunch of long delays in releasing and a lot of the hype around it kind of fell flat once it finally hit shelves (at least locally this has been the case, I don't think my FLGS has sold a single copy), so might be why no one is talking about it/comparing the two. I'm aware of it, but I haven't heard anything good about it. It hasn't sold much at all where I work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:24
|
|