|
fozzy fosbourne posted:I've cooled off a bit on ONUW because it just doesn't work that well if you have people who don't give a poo poo about the villagers losing and are only concerned with not getting killed. I feel like it would be better if there was some meta game attached to it to make people want to actually win, like maybe a drinking game, betting, or maybe people get kicked in the groin if they lose, I dunno So the game ceases to function if you play with people who don't care about the explicit win/loss condition? You don't say.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
The difference is that I didn't make that game. Scyther posted:So the game ceases to function if you play with people who don't care about the explicit win/loss condition? You don't say. I think the specific problem is that the game fails to properly motivate its players to achieve the greater win/loss condition in favor of the lesser win/loss condition, essentially the opposite of Dead of Winter. While I don't encounter that specific problem in my group, teamwork in general in ONUW is very difficult to manage due to the complete lack of structure the game has. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The difference is that I didn't make that game. Oh wow, I assumed that was a list of all goon games. You've made a lot of games!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
There is no lesser win/loss condition. Whether you get lynched or not has no direct bearing on your win state, although in the case of most roles it incurs a loss for your team. Obvious exceptions would be the tanner, minion, and a correctly guessing hunter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
My problem with Werewolf is it's a game where it's entirely plausible to get eliminated right off the bat and then you're sitting out the rest of the game until it's over. Avalon and its ilk keep everyone involved the whole way through, and for that reason alone I find it to be a superior experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Scyther posted:There is no lesser win/loss condition. Whether you get lynched or not has no direct bearing on your win state, although in the case of most roles it incurs a loss for your team. Obvious exceptions would be the tanner, minion, and a correctly guessing hunter. I'm aware, but the game has difficulty communicating this through the vertical difficulty slope of its cooperative mechanics. In most cases, a player's only motivation is "survive" because they otherwise don't have enough information to achieve much more (and "survive" is nearly always part of your victory condition). The alternative cases, such as my own play experiences, end up with the game being largely solved in about a minute once the bluff chain is worked out. ONUW has very little middle ground between those 2 extremes, since the game punishes the poo poo out of bluffing while rewarding the poo poo out of deduction. If anything, it's a very bad introductory traitor game. One Night can't shine until players appropriately learn how to be proactive and layer test lies as diversions for deduction's sake despite having every reason to tell the truth. Before you can do that, you just kind of have to fend for yourself and hope your teammates do the same until somebody breaks on who is safe to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:My problem with Werewolf is it's a game where it's entirely plausible to get eliminated right off the bat and then you're sitting out the rest of the game until it's over. Avalon and its ilk keep everyone involved the whole way through, and for that reason alone I find it to be a superior experience. Yeah, this is basically why I don't like it either. It's a legitimate problem where every game, one player just doesn't get to play that game which is a bizarrely lovely setup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Words Thanks for the writeup BL, you're alright. And I saw the kickstarter cardback fiasco, which is still lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Hearthstone Arena has little in common with MtG draft, it's more like sealed deck if you were only allowed to look at 10% of your pool at a time. I think it's the worst CCG format I've ever played.jmzero posted:But for whatever else I feel about the design, Hearthstone acts like a boardgame - and with its success I look forward to more boardgame design ideas and properties (simplicity, transparency, managed multiplayer interactions) trampling over their inferior video game counterparts (baffling pointless complexity, hidden mechanics, only free-for-all chaos or teams, etc..).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I meant to reply to the Viticulture question and forgot. I found it so-so. I also found his other game so-so. Neither of them do much for worker placement, and I found Archon superior to both if you like your worker placement euro-style, and Argent 100% superior if you want some theme and solid interaction in your worker placement game. Viticulture seems to be another simple engine optimization game and I guess I'm really tired of those. This is the impression I got. Why did you bring up Archon out of the blue? Is it related in some way? I've never heard of it. I can understand Viticulture having more appeal to an older audience I guess, but that doesn't seem like a reason to pick up a sub-optimal game. Does anyone have any experience with Pearl Games? I picked up a copy of Troyes in French because it was cheap and there's no in-game text that matters but it'd be nice to get a reference sheet that wasn't in French for my non-French speaking pals. Mostly I'm wondering if there is any chance they'd be able to send me one or if I just have to print off the pdf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/190164/direct-links-artscowcowcow-draw-bag-designes 10 bags for $20 if you want to really impress your nerdy friends with these custom bags for your tiles and crap! I want the 1960 one, to carry my lunch to work in
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
SuccinctAndPunchy posted:Yeah, this is basically why I don't like it either. It's a legitimate problem where every game, one player just doesn't get to play that game which is a bizarrely lovely setup. Strictly speaking it's a combination of guaranteed early player elimination along with the fact that Werewolf isn't exactly a breezy 15 minute experience, and most often when people want to play it is when they have 10+ people which makes it take even longer. Games like Love Letter and Coup can result in players being eliminated early on as well, but the difference there is that you're waiting like 5-10 minutes at most (and they have tighter player caps) whereas the very first game of ONUW I played I was lynched right off the bat and then got to sit there for 45 minutes while everyone else played the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:https://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/190164/direct-links-artscowcowcow-draw-bag-designes This would actually be very nice for Castles of burgundy. Keeping those drat tiles sorted is a pain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
This post is a bit late, but I've had a busy couple days and haven't been able to keep up. Lorini's breakdown/comparison of Hearthstone and MtG was pretty solid. I'd comment on more specifics in it but I'm phone posting and this is going to be long enough already so I'm going to stick to addressing the guy's inquiry as to the differences between HS and physical WoW TCG. Disclaimer 1, I was loving deep into the TCG, up to and including traveling to a lot of the (US domestic) DMFs and larger events to both compete and work on the judge staff. It was a very major part of my life while it was running, and I have that game to thank for steering me into the board game world in the last few years before it got the axe around the time Hearthstone was getting released. So I'll do my best to remain unbiased, but if I come across as such, you know why! Disclaimer 2, I've played farrr less Hearthstone than I ever played the TCG, so my perceptions may lack a full scope and am open to corrections/differing opinions on where I see HS's flaws. Deck Building In Hearthstone, you have your class decision, and the smattering of class cards to choose from, followed by the neutral cards that all decks can share, as Lorini previously pointed out. That's it. In the TCG, first you had your faction: Alliance or Horde (and later in the games life a third Monster faction was introduced). Then you chose your class, and within that class you had multiple heroes to choose from, each with a different power (more on this below). Then you had all your class abilities, but within them there were Talent cards (mirroring the three-pronged talent trees featured in the MMO, naturally), which structured your deck around a particular theme; for example, a Protection Warrior deck was likely to be built differently than a Fury Warrior deck, or an Arms Warrior, and further still the Alliance or Horde versions often played very differently still due to the faction-specific Allies available to each (Ally = Minion in Hearthstone terms). Essentially there was a lot of decisions that could go into building a deck, and changing just a couple things could massively swing how the deck played, and it was incredible for diversity and customization. Now I'm not going to tell you that the game didn't suffer from solved meta-games at the competitive level; naturally there were always top-tier decks that rose to the top of the pile every time the meta shifted, but solving said meta game was a complex process at times due to the robust nature of the deck building options, and as someone else mentioned a page or so ago, a lot of the fun in TCGs can come from trying to solve that puzzle. In Hearthstone, the lack of most of those options always made me feel very cookie cutter when I played a class or explored what card options I had. Sure, part of that may be attributed to the fact that the game is only a year or so old and doesn't have the card pool that the TCG had, but all the same, it definitely leaves me feeling wanting when I play it. Hopefully they incorporate more of those micro details to HS down the road, and if they do id be thrilled, but I've got some friends on the HS team and well, I'm not holding my breath. Heroes A sub-point of the first, heroes fill a very different space in the two games. This likely will be something they'll change/add to Hearthstone in time and it will be great when they do. In HS, each class has 1 hero, and that hero had a single 2-cost power that is available once per turn. In the TCG, even in its first set, had multiple heroes for each class to choose from, each with a different power, and the biggest difference between them being that their powers were a once per game effect instead of once per turn. They also were designed with a variety of costs, so deck building had to take into account not only which hero power best suited the deck you were building, but then a smart player wanted to build their card pool around how and when to best utilize their (often very powerful) hero power that game. I played some decks that specifically intended to utilize their hero's power right on curve (that is, the turn which you first have enough resources to pay for it), every game, because it best synergized with cards you'd want to be playing the turns before and after. It became a virtual card in your hand, and could be utilized to create heavy advantage. Hearthstone's hero powers serve a similar function, but in a much more narrow space since they're all identically costed and none of them are really game changing (arguable that Warlock's draw is a leg above the rest IMO, but that may be up for debate). Again, it just has always felt really watered down compared to the TCG, since that intense decision point is removed when you can just use your power every turn after you run out of cards (not that it's necessarily a good play to do so, but you get the idea I think). Brian Kibler wrote up a really good evaluation of HS hero powers on his blog last year; I'd recommend searching it up, he has a good perspective on it and assuredly compares the two games heroes better than I am. Resources As has been mentioned or as you already know, HS has an auto-resource system that many people love; it removes the need for specific cards ala MtG's lands and thus removes the potential for mana screw/flood, one of the single biggest flaws with Magic. It also, however, is boring as gently caress (sorry, I know I said I'd try not to sound biased; I failed). WoW TCG's system for resources was probably my favorite I've seen in a TCG to date, though I realize not everyone sees it the same way. In it, a player can place any card in their hand face down as a resource to be used to pay costs. Before getting into further options, let me talk about that a bit. First off, as an actual similarity to Hearthstone, it does make the game much more tempo driven since both players are presumably upping their resource count by 1 every turn, so the pressure is usually constant and that keeps the games A) more interactive, and B) heading towards a natural conclusion and helped avoid lulls in which both players are stalled for lands. Additionally, the strategic decision making that often had to go into these face-down resource plays were something a lot of people I think take for granted; since you couldn't get a card back once it had been placed face-down, you would need to decide bSed on your match-up what cards were integral to your strategy, or which cards could be forfeit as less useful. Or maybe you just simply had to choose between a hand of 5 really good cards? How do you choose? There was a skill element that came into play with the system that I really enjoyed thanks to those difficult decision points. Aside from face-down cards, they also had two face-up options which were cards specifically intended to be resources (like Lands). They were Quests and Locations. Quests had unique powers that let you pay some resources to "complete the quest" for some kind of reward (drawing cards was common, but there was a huge design space explored for quests) and then you would turn the quest over to show you completed it, never to be done again that game. Not only were they great mechanically as come-back powers when your hand ran dry, or simply other strategic pieces of a gamestate that had to be considered and played around, but they were thematic as hell, and I'm a sucker for good theming. Locations stayed face-up the whole game and had powers as well, but you were only allowed one face-up location at any given time. All of that stuff combined makes me really love the TCG resource system, while Hearthstones mana gems filling up each round just make me wish I had ANY kind of agency over the system. Interactivity This is a pretty obvious one, so I'll keep it short. Hearthstones Secrets are a far cry from actually being able to use instant-speed responsive effects during your opponents turn. I realize that the mobile-friendly age of gaming that we're in doesn't really support that level of game play depth, but that doesn't change the fact that Hearthstone will simply never touch that level of interactive complexity offered not just by WoW, but by any physical TCG. That said, I think Secrets are a decent middle ground that I give their designers credit for coming up with in the space they had to work with. This is long enough I think, and that's the major points that immediately come to mind when comparing physical WoW to Hearthstone. There's probably other things to be said, but those are the major ones. I will say that if you're able to get a large collection for cheap, AND you have multiple people interested in playing, it is still a great game. You could also put together a draft cube pretty easily and inexpensively I'd wager; I know a lot of the guys from the old tournament scene have made them (myself included) since the game ended and is a nice way to enjoy the game in its dead days. (Though like I mentioned before, it'll never live up to the fun of new cards releasing, meta games changing, and learning how to compete with new decks all the time) Feel free to PM me any other questions about the game. As I said, I was pretty heavily involved with it and would be glad to talk about it, any time. You can also check out https://www.tcgbrowser.com to explore all the cards from the games 7-year run, and see examples of all the stuff I talked about here. Merauder fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Hackjack posted:Are there other games that fit my needs that I may have overlooked in my consideration? Pairs is fun, super-light, fits in a pocket and doesn't take too much room. Advantage: there is no winner, only an ultimate loser, who should naturally buy the next round.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:whereas the very first game of ONUW I played I was lynched right off the bat and then got to sit there for 45 minutes while everyone else played the game. I have to assume you mean regular Werewolf/Mafia here, because the whole point of One Night Ultimate Werewolf is that there's only one round and the game ends immediately when someone gets lynched. That's why it originally came up, as it's an extremely fast, fairly light game that everyone is involved in the whole time, so it might be suitable for the original request depending on how they feel about Broken Loose's criticisms
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Heads up, ios coup is loaded with micro transactions. It's awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
The End posted:Heads up, ios coup is loaded with micro transactions. It's awful. How the hell do you even microtransact Coup? "Pay $1 to unlock Duke"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:How the hell do you even microtransact Coup? "Pay $1 to unlock Duke"? Pay 3 to assassinate / 7 to Coup is now actually a cash micro transaction it's self! (Nah I have no idea, how he hell do they gently caress that up?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
I think it's just different art for the IAP. So they didn't gently caress up after all!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Are you kidding? $8 for each art pack (there are three). $1 for the ability to communicate. $ to remove ads. An energy mechanism that recharges or you can pay to play. It's nickel and done bullshit
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Oh, I was just relaying what I had read in comments on a mobile gaming site. That does suck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
The End posted:$8 for each art pack (there are three). $ to remove ads. These two seem reasonable, TBF. (Holy poo poo did they seriously go for a bullshit freemium energy mechanic?  )
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Has anyone played 51st State? I'm looking for a game with a post apocalyptic theme and I don't want a minitures game. So, is it any good? Any other post apocalypse games that don't use minitures?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Jabor posted:These two seem reasonable, TBF. Better question is, why did it take this long for board game apps to try it? It's actually a great idea, from a monetization standpoint. Remove the cruft and clutter from a board game, leaving just the nice simple package of playing it. This makes people want to play it over and over, and they will: just ask someone who played Dominion on Isotropic how many more games they could and did play over the physical version. Finally, once you've gotten them wanting to play over and over, charge them for it. Why give for free what you could get money for, that sort of thing. Of course, it makes a segment of the population hate you and your game, but hey, how else are they going to play Coup on their iPhone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:I have to assume you mean regular Werewolf/Mafia here, because the whole point of One Night Ultimate Werewolf is that there's only one round and the game ends immediately when someone gets lynched. That's why it originally came up, as it's an extremely fast, fairly light game that everyone is involved in the whole time, so it might be suitable for the original request depending on how they feel about Broken Loose's criticisms Yeah, that's probably what it is. Someone just brought a box that had "One Night Ultimate Werewolf" on it but it was definitely the regular multi-day thing so they may have just thrown everything into the one box and called it good. If ONUW is what you say it is then it definitely sounds like an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Everyone should take a look at 2 Rooms and a Boom to replace Werewolf/Mafia in the 10+ player party game slot. No player elimination and doesn't have the "hurrrr lynch that guy because he has a beard, he must be a werewolf  " poo poo that happens with werewolf games.You can get it for free here: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/88133/two-rooms-and-boom-rules-character-guide-v40 http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/102393/easy-read-and-use-card-set-template
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Yeah, that's probably what it is. Someone just brought a box that had "One Night Ultimate Werewolf" on it but it was definitely the regular multi-day thing so they may have just thrown everything into the one box and called it good. If ONUW is what you say it is then it definitely sounds like an improvement. One Night is a 3-10 player traitor game that takes anywhere from 1-5 minutes to play. The game has no player elimination and is really short. The downside is the number of concessions the game makes to be short-- as I said to Scyther (and have said in the past), the game is absolutely solvable if you spend too much time in it (meaning that it's often better to keep the game EVEN SHORTER using a timer or something). MikeCrotch posted:Everyone should take a look at 2 Rooms and a Boom to replace Werewolf/Mafia in the 10+ player party game slot. No player elimination and doesn't have the "hurrrr lynch that guy because he has a beard, he must be a werewolf 2R1B is a cute idea. However, the Kickstarter has been a gigantic clusterfuck and the game is more of a proof-of-concept. Rounds are wildly freeform, which often prevents a lot of players from acting in social games (this stretches beyond just 2R1B and Werewolf; I have players who greatly prefer the straightforward structure of D&D to the humor, trickery, and chaos of Paranoia). The sheer volume of variant characters is cool, but they also add to the game's social intimidation factor even in the planning stage (which of the 100+ characters do you want to use? you're not sure? well, I can single out about 20-30 that are suitable for beginners...). Modern culture is overpopulated with people who romanticize social anxiety and flaking out, and you can't even get a lot of people to be decisive about where they want to eat lunch within a mile for less than 10 bucks. A traitor game with entirely volunteered information and no mechanical steps in place to establish spotlight positions off the bat is like playing Dominion without victory cards. I'm glad I didn't pay money for it. 11+ people is a hard gap to fill, although Ca$h 'N Gun$ Live! would fill it easily if it were more widely available. It's no big loss since wrangling that amount of players is like herding kittens, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:11+ people is a hard gap to fill, although Ca$h 'N Gun$ Live! would fill it easily if it were more widely available. It's no big loss since wrangling that amount of players is like herding kittens, anyway. I still think Werewolf works great for this, precisely because wrangling that amount of players is like herding kittens. I've seen Werewolf brought out at a party where about half the people were interested in playing, and then when people got eliminated they just rejoined the rest of the party. It's probably the game that integrates itself best into a party for this reason, but the player elimination factor is exactly what makes it less suitable for proper sit-down gaming sessions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Trasson posted:Better question is, why did it take this long for board game apps to try it?  This sort of bullshit is why I turned to board games in the first place. There is no way for a piece of cardboard to up-sell me on micro-transatcions, there is no way for it to display animated banner ads, there is no way for it track usage statistics and collect my personal information, and best of all there is no way for anyone to decide I no longer have the "rights" to play the game I purchased. I play the poo poo out of Dominion.Net, but if someone was charging me a dime every time I used it I would never have even considered it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:There is no way for a piece of cardboard to up-sell me on micro-transatcions Magic. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:There is no way for a piece of cardboard to up-sell me on micro-transatcions, Sir, can I tell you about the good word of the LCG? e:f,b
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Like will all implementations of DLC/post-initial-purchases, there are good ways and bad ways to go about it. A free app with a limited number of plays over time? Sure, why not. Encourages people to buy a full version. Selling more plays in tiny packs? Slightly more annoying. Usage stats over time? That's one of the best advantages a digital game has over a hardcopy one. I love to go back and look through my old stats, especially if the app shows me averages, trends, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
It seems like you are about to take a begging card. Pay 50 Rosengems to get food now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
I'm just not impressed with iOS Coup because it seems like agony to play the online multiplayer mode. So... everyone gets 10 minutes to make a decision and each turn I have to be around to have the chance to challenge them? Then I have to make a single move like, 30 minutes later but I have only 10 minutes before my turn is up? I don't know whose schedule this game works around, but it sure as hell isn't mine. On the other hand, local wireless multiplayer might be good because you're all in the same room together with the app.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I'm just not impressed with iOS Coup because it seems like agony to play the online multiplayer mode. So... everyone gets 10 minutes to make a decision and each turn I have to be around to have the chance to challenge them? Then I have to make a single move like, 30 minutes later but I have only 10 minutes before my turn is up? If we're all in the same room, we can play without the app.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
Its coming the only question is will it be fantasy flight who already mega bloats their popular games with micro expansions or asmodee proper who does it. We tried to warn them rutibex but they did not listen and now with convention season coming it's time to watch the car crash in slow motion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
I got Roll for the Galaxy yesterday and we played two 2-player games of it. I really like it so far. The rules are kind of hard to explain, but she understood it completely after just playing 2 rounds. Any easy way you explain how the dice placement/phase selection works?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Rusty Kettle posted:This would actually be very nice for Castles of burgundy. Keeping those drat tiles sorted is a pain. Use flexible cupcake baking cups
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Magic. MikeCrotch posted:Sir, can I tell you about the good word of the LCG? Oh, I'm no fan of CCGs business model, they too are what make me appreciate boardgaming. I like being able to buy a "complete" game. Yes there is such a thing as board game expansions, but they are a separate transaction, and the initial game has to be able to stand on it's own. Board games are kind of in a space that computer games used to be in before the internet got big. Popular games got big boxed expansions that included lots of improvements to the game. Now a days, that big expansion would be broken up into 20 mini-DLC, and buying the whole thing will cost you twice as much. Some board games do this (oh god Netrunner  ) but thankfully most go with the big box model of expansions.But, when I think "micro-transaction" I think "buying something with only temporary value" like recharging your energy in a freemium game, or buying XP bonuses, or in-game currency. A board game expansion at least has a physical property to it, you will always have it, unlike some in-game coins or whatever. Like paying a nickel to play a game of Coup on your iphone. This is the kind of thing I want to avoid, with these app integrated games like Alchemy and Xcom. When Xcom 2 comes out are you still going to be able to use that app, or download it? Lots of video games get "deactivated" these days when squeals come out; I would hate to dust off some old game in the attic to play with my grandkids and have it not work because iPads don't exist any more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:06
|
|